title: How Broadband Speech May Avoid Neural Firing Rate Saturation at High Intensities and Maintain Intelligibility.
abstract: While broadband speech may remain perfectly intelligible at levels exceeding 90 dB, narrowband speech intelligibility (e.g., 2/3-octave passband centered at 1.5 kHz) may decline by 25% or more at moderate intensities (e.g., 75 dB). This "rollover" effect is substantially reduced, however, when a speech band is accompanied by flanking bands of white noise [J.A. Bashford, R.M. Warren, & P.W. Lenz, 2005, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 365-369 (2005)], suggesting that lateral suppression helps preserve broadband speech intelligibility at high levels. The present study found that when noise flankers were presented individually at a low spectrum level (-30 dB relative to the speech) only the higher-frequency flanker produced a significant intelligibility increase. However, the lower-frequency flanking noise did produce an equivalent increase when its spectrum level was raised 10 dB. This asymmetrical intensity requirement for noise flankers links the effective dynamic range of speech intelligibility to reported characteristics of both lateral (two-tone) suppression of auditory nerve (AN) fiber activity and lateral inhibition of secondary cells of the cochlear nucleus. These and other observations will be discussed in the broader context of how various auditory mechanisms help preserve speech intelligibility at high intensities by reducing firing rate saturation. [Supported by NIH.].
authors.forename: R M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Warren
authors.forename: J A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Bashford
authors.forename: P W
authors.initials: PW
authors.lastname: Lenz
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1995 Jan;73(1):141-59
references.pmid: 7714560
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1977 May;61(5):1337-51
references.pmid: 881487
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1988 Mar;83(3):1081-6
references.pmid: 3356813
references.citation: Hear Res. 1982 Feb;6(2):199-205
references.pmid: 7061351
references.citation: Hear Res. 1989 Jan;37(2):89-104
references.pmid: 2914811
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1979 Aug;66(2):470-9
references.pmid: 512208
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Jan;117(1):365-9
references.pmid: 15704428
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Apr;105(4):2431-44
references.pmid: 10212424
references.citation: Hear Res. 1988 Aug;34(3):267-74
references.pmid: 3170367
references.citation: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2009 Sep;10(3):459-70
references.pmid: 19263165
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1985 Apr;53(4):940-58
references.pmid: 3998799
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2005 Dec;8(12):1684-9
references.pmid: 16286934
references.citation: Proc Meet Acoust. 2011 Oct;12:
references.pmid: 22639703
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1992 Oct;68(4):1087-99
references.pmid: 1432070
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2009 Nov 4;29(44):13797-808
references.pmid: 19889991
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1971 Apr;49(4):Suppl 2:1218+
references.pmid: 4994693
references.citation: Science. 1983 Sep 16;221(4616):1206-8
references.pmid: 6612337
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1980 May;67(5):1751-63
references.pmid: 7372930
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Oct;106(4 Pt 1):1865-79
references.pmid: 10530012
references.citation: Ear Hear. 2006 Dec;27(6):589-607
references.pmid: 17086072
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2008 Nov;11(11):1259-61
references.pmid: 18820690
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1984 Mar;27(1):32-48
references.pmid: 6717005
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1994 Feb;71(2):493-514
references.pmid: 8176421
references.citation: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1955 Dec;64(4):1234-44
references.pmid: 13283495
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2006 Dec;9(12):1474-6
references.pmid: 17115038