Abstract
The intelligibility of sentences recorded from the uterus of a pregnant ewe and from the near-term fetal sheep inner ear was judged by 30 listeners. Sentences were presented to the ewe at 95 and 105 dB SPL while sequential recordings of sound with a hydrophone and a cochlear microphonic (CM) with electrodes were made. Recordings were randomized and presented to listeners to judge the intelligibility of sentences processed through the ewe and fetal inner ear. Intelligibility scores were nearly 99% for air and uterus conditions, dropped to 73% for CM ex utero and to 41% for CM in utero. Results indicated that filtering provided by the tissues and fluids of the maternal abdomen did not affect sentence intelligibility significantly, but the filtering effects as the signal passed into the fetal inner ear resulted in much poorer intelligibility.
References
1.
Abrams RM, Gerhardt KJ, Antonelli PJ: Fetal hearing. Dev Psychobiol 1998;33:1–3.
2.
Abrams RM, Gerhardt KJ, Peters AJM: Transmission of sound and vibration to the fetus; in Lecanuet JP, Fifer WP, Krasnegor NA, Smotherman WP (eds): Fetal Development: A Psychobiological Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995, pp 315–330.
3.
Armtiage SE, Baldwin BA, Vince MA: The fetal sound environment of sheep. Science 1980;208:1173–1174.
4.
Bench J: Sound transmission to the human foetus through the maternal abdominal wall. J Genet Psychol 1968;113:85–87.
5.
Borden GJ, Harris KS, Raphel LJ: Speech Production II: The finished product – The articulation and acoustics of speech sounds; in: Speech Science Primer: Physiology, Acoustics and Perception of Speech, ed 3. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1994, pp 90–173.
6.
Crandell C: Speech recognition in noise by children with minimal degrees of sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 1993;14:210–216.
7.
Dawes GS, Fox HE, Leduc BM, Liggins GC, Richards RT: Respiratory movements in rapid eye movements foetal lamb. J Physiol 1972;220:119–143.
8.
DeCasper AJ, Fifer WP: Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mother’s voices. Science 1980;208:1174–1176.
9.
DeCasper AJ, Lecanuet JP, Busnel MC, Granier-Deferre C, Maugeais C: Fetal reactions to recurrent maternal speech. Infant Behav Dev 1994;17:159–164.
10.
Fifer WP: Neonatal preference for mother’s voice; in Krasnegor NA, Blass EM, Hofer MA, Smotherman WP (eds): Perinatal Development: A Psychobiological Perspective. New York, Academic Press, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987, pp 111–124.
11.
Fifer WP, Moon CM: The role of mother’s voice in the organization of brain function in the newborn. Acta Paediaric Suppl 1994;397:86–93.
12.
Gerhardt K: Characteristics of the fetal sheep sound environment. Semin Perinatol 1989;13:632–370.
13.
Gerhardt KJ, Abrams RM, Oliver CC: Sound environment of the fetal sheep. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:282–287.
14.
Gerhardt KJ, Abrams RM: Fetal hearing: Characterization of the stimulus and response. Semin Perinatol 1996;20:11–20.
15.
Gerhardt KJ, Huang X, Arrington KE, Meixner K, Abrams RM, Antonelli PJ: Fetal sheep in utero hear through bone conduction. Am J Otolaryngol 1996;17:374–379.
16.
Gerhardt KJ, Otto R, Abrams RM, Colle JJ, Burchfield DJ, Peters AJM: Cochlear microphonics recorded from fetal and newborn sheep. Am J Otolaryngol 1992;13:226–233.
17.
Geisser S, Greenhouse SW: An extension of Box’s results on the use of the F distribution in multivariate analysis. Ann Math Stat 1958;29:885–891.
18.
Griffiths SK, Brown WS, Gerhardt KJ, Abrams RM, Morris RJ. The perception speech sounds recorded within the uterus of a pregnant sheep. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;96:2055–2063.
19.
Hepper PG, Scott D, Shahidullah S: Newborn and fetal response to maternal voice. J Reprod Infant Psychol 1993;11:147–153.
20.
Huang X, Gerhardt KJ, Griffiths SK, Abrams RM: Intelligibility of speech recorded from the cochlea of fetal sheep in utero. Abstr Midwinter Res Meet Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2002;25:52.
21.
Kenworthy OT, Klee T, Tharpe A: Speech recognition ability of children with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss as a function of amplification, speech stimuli and listening condition. Ear Hear 1990;11:264–270.
22.
Lecanuet J: Prenatal audition. Eur Soc Cogn Sci Music 1993;4:E14–E19.
23.
Lecanuet J, Granier-Deferre C, Jacquet AY, Capponi I, Ledru, L: Prenatal discrimination of a male and a female voice uttering the same sentence. Early Dev Parent 1993;2:217–228.
24.
Legouix JP, Pierson A: Electrophysiological correlates of cochlear fatigue and trauma; in Tobias JV, Schubert ED (eds): Hearing Research and Theory. New York, Academic Press, 1981, vol 1, pp 63–98.
25.
Mehler J, Bertoncini J, Barriere M: Infant recognition of mother’s voice. Perception 1978;7:491–497.
26.
Mills M, Melhuish E: Recognition of mother’s voice in early infancy. Nature 1974;252:123–124.
27.
Peters AJM, Abrams RM, Gerhardt KJ, Griffiths SK: Transmission of airborne sound from 50–20,000 Hz into the abdomen of sheep. J Low Freq Noise Vib 1993;12:16–24.
28.
Querleu D, Renard X, Versyp F, Paris-Delrue L, Crepin G: Fetal hearing. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1988;29:191–212.
29.
Querleu D, Renard X, Boutteville C, Crepin G: Hearing by the human fetus? Semin Perinatol 1989;13:409–420.
30.
Querleu D, Renard X, Crepin G: Perception auditive et reactivité foetale aux stimulations sonores. J Gynécol Obstet Biol Reprod 1981;10:307–341.
31.
Shahidullah S, Hepper PG: Frequency discrimination by the fetus. Early Hum Dev 1994;36:13–26.
32.
Sohmer H, Goitein K, Freeman S: Improvement in sensorineural auditory threshold of the guinea-pig fetus following delivery. Hear Res 1994;73:116–120.
33.
Vince MA, Billing AE, Baldwin BA, Toner JN, Weller C: Maternal vocalizations and other sounds in the fetal lamb’s sound environment. Early Hum Dev 1985;11:179–190.
34.
Vince MA, Armitage SE, Baldwin BA, Toner J: The sound environment of the foetal sheep. Behaviour 1982;81:296–315.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
2003
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
