Abstract
Biology and experience both influence the auditory brain. Sex is one biological factor with pervasive effects on auditory processing. Females process sounds faster and more robustly than males. These differences are linked to hormone differences between the sexes. Athleticism is an experiential factor known to reduce ongoing neural noise, but whether it influences how sounds are processed by the brain is unknown. Furthermore, it is unknown whether sports participation influences auditory processing differently in males and females, given the well-documented sex differences in auditory processing seen in the general population. We hypothesized that athleticism enhances auditory processing and that these enhancements are greater in females. To test these hypotheses, we measured auditory processing in collegiate Division I male and female student-athletes and their non-athlete peers (total nā=ā1012) using the frequency-following response (FFR). The FFR is a neurophysiological response to sound that reflects the processing of discrete sound features. We measured across-trial consistency of the response in addition to fundamental frequency (F0) and harmonic encoding. We found that athletes had enhanced encoding of the harmonics, which was greatest in the female athletes, and that athletes had more consistent responses than non-athletes. In contrast, F0 encoding was reduced in athletes. The harmonic-encoding advantage in female athletes aligns with previous work linking harmonic encoding strength to female hormone levels and studies showing estrogen as mediating athlete sex differences in other sensory domains. Lastly, persistent deficits in auditory processing from previous concussive and repetitive subconcussive head trauma may underlie the reduced F0 encoding in athletes, as poor F0 encoding is a hallmark of concussion injury.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
For the auditory brain, sex matters. The female brain responds to sounds faster and more robustly than males1,2,3. Animal models suggest that these sex differences in auditory processing are tied to hormone levels in females4,5,6,7, with the greatest differences occurring when female estrogen levels are highest8. Consistent with a tethering of hormone levels and auditory processing, in humans, differences between males and females are minimal during early childhood9 but begin to diverge during puberty, when differences in sex hormones are initiated 10,11,12, and continue to become more distinct into young adulthood9,13.
In addition to sex effects on auditory processing, the auditory brain is shaped by experience14,15,16,17,18. Auditory enrichment, such as speaking multiple languages or playing a musical instrument, enhances processing of sound features important for that experience19,20,21,22,23,24,25, while auditory impoverishment, such as linguistic deprivation associated with low socioeconomic status (SES), can lead to poorer processing of sound features and increased neural noise26, which is the random, intrinsic fluctuations in the brain that are not in response to an external stimulus. The neural noise differences are presumed to arise from differences in overall health, as low-SES individuals tend to be exposed to higher ambient environmental noise levels and eat food lower in nutritional value compared to high-SES individuals27,28. In contrast, reduced neural noise levels have been observed in collegiate athletes29, extraordinarily healthy individuals whose intense physical training and conditioning to maximize performance in their sport30,31 is hypothesized to underlie this reduction in neural noise.
While it is known that sports participation can reduce neural noise, it is unknown whether it can enhance auditory processing of specific sound features, similar to the way that auditory processing enhancements through lifelong bilingualism or music training manifest. We hypothesize that because athletes constantly hone their auditory system to communicate and react in noisy settings32,33,34,35, enhanced processing of discrete sound features should be seen in the adult athlete brain. Given that sex differences in auditory processing are pervasive post-puberty, it is necessary to determine whether sports participation affects male and female athletes differently. In athletes, sex differences are known to exist in visual processing36,37, skeletal injury rates and severity38,39, and risk, symptoms, and severity of a sports-related concussion40,41. Evidence suggests estrogen plays a role in these athlete sex differences42,43,44,45,46, similar to the sex differences seen in auditory processing. Because estrogen leads to more robust and faster auditory processing in females, we hypothesized that athlete-related enhancements in auditory processing are magnified in female athletes. That is, athletic performance accentuates the sex differences by further boosting auditory processing in female athletes.
To test the hypotheses that athleticism enhances auditory processing and that it leads to greater enhancements in female athletes compared to male athletes, we measured auditory processing in male and female Division I student-athletes and non-athletes using the frequency-following response (FFR), a neurophysiological response to sound that reflects the processing of sound details and is generated predominantly in the auditory midbrain47,48,49,50. The FFR captures microsecond-fast neural activity in response to distinct sound features in speech, such as the fundamental, or lowest, frequency as well as harmonics of the fundamental, which differentially combine to form speech formants, that is, the frequencies that distinguish words like ādadā and ābadā21,51,52. FFRs were recorded in alternating polarity, in which the stimulus was presented in one polarity and a second polarity that was 180 degrees out of phase with the first polarity. Doing so allowed us to bias responses to specific frequency components. By adding the two polarities, we generate an envelope response (FFRENV), which biases the fundamental, whereas, by subtracting the two polarities, we generate a temporal fine structure response (FFTTFS), which biases the higher frequencies52,53. We sought to determine whether sex and athletic experience affected these components differently. We compared the male and female athletes and non-athletes on frequency-encoding strength over the fundamental frequency, frequencies corresponding to the first formant (i.e., the lowest band of prominent frequencies contributing to the phonetic content of the sound), and frequencies between the first and second formants that are captured within the FFR. In non-athletes, encoding of these frequencies is known to be greater in females than males1,9,13. We predicted that athletic experience would enhance processing of these frequencies in both males and females (i.e., athlete main effect), but that the enhancement would be greater for female athletes than male athletes (i.e., sex by athlete interaction). We also compared participants on the across-trial replicability of their FFRs, a measure of how consistent the response is over time. Given that consistency of the response can be impacted by neural noise26,52, we predicted that athletes would have greater across-session response consistency than non-athletes, in line with previous findings that athletes have brains with less neural noise29. Previous studies have also found that response consistency does not differ between males and females13; we therefore predicted that it would not show a sex difference here.
To determine whether any observed differences were specific to these FFR components or reflected general differences between athletes and non-athletes in auditory processing, a follow-up analysis was run comparing these four groups on timing of 6 peaks, previously defined in this response1,54. The effect of sex on these absolute latencies has been well established, with females having earlier latencies than males1,9,55,56, consistent with earlier studies using simpler stimuli2,57,58 (although in response to complex sounds, the sex difference in peak latency emerges across development, with many timing differences seen in adulthood not present in early childhood9). We had no a-priori expectations for what would be observed between athletes and non-athletes.
Results
In summary, across-trial response consistency and encoding of the first formant (F1) and high frequencies (HF) were higher in athletes compared to non-athletes, while encoding of the fundamental frequency (F0) was lower in athletes. The athlete harmonic enhancements were driven by higher levels of encoding in the female athletes. The sex differences and polarity effects were in line with previous findings, with females having more robust encoding of the F0, F1, and HF than males and the FFRENV responses being larger and more consistent than the FFRTFS responses. Interestingly, with the addition of athletes, a new sex difference emerged: females had more consistent responses than males.
Response consistency (RC)
Across-trial consistency was higher for athletes compared to non-athletes (athletes r value: 0.692āĀ±ā0.165; non-athletes r value: 0.637āĀ±ā0.169, Fig.Ā 1; see Table 1 for RMANOVA statistics). This difference in consistency was driven by greater differences between athletes and non-athletes for FFRTFS (athletes: 0.583āĀ±ā0.232; non-athletes: 0.477āĀ±ā0.249; t(1008)ā=ā6.431; pā<ā0.0005; dā=ā0.446) than for FFRENV (athletes: 0.801āĀ±ā0.147; non-athletes: 0.798āĀ±ā0.139; t(1008)ā=ā0.497; pā=ā0.619; dā=ā0.034; Fig.Ā 2), as indicated by the polarity by athlete status interaction.
Additionally, there were main effects of polarity and sex, as well as a polarity by sex interaction. FFRENV responses had greater consistency than FFRTFS responses (FFRENV: 0.800āĀ±ā0.145; FFRTFS: 0.552āĀ±ā0.242) and females had higher response consistency than males (females: 0.701āĀ±ā0.161; males: 0.650āĀ±ā0.171). This sex difference was greater for FFRENV than for FFRTFS (females, FFRENV: 0.823āĀ±ā0.140; males, FFRENV: 0.776āĀ±ā0.145; t(1008)ā=ā6.505; pā<ā0.0005; dā=ā0.409; females, FFRTFS: 0.579āĀ±ā0.233; males, FFRTFS: 0.525āĀ±ā0.248; t(1008)ā=ā3.567; pā<ā0.0005; dā=ā0.224). RC means and standard deviations broken down by the four groups (female athlete, male athlete, female non-athlete, male non-athlete) at each polarity are reported in Table 2.
High frequency (HF) encoding
HF encoding differences between athletes and non-athletes were similar to the effects seen in RC. Athletes had greater HF encoding than non-athletes (athletes: 4.460āĀ±ā1.457 nV; non-athletes: 4.341āĀ±ā1.348 nV; Fig.Ā 2; see Table 1 for all RMANOVA statistics). There was a sex by athlete interaction, showing that female athletes had higher encoding than female non-athletes (female athletes: 5.082āĀ±ā1.512 nV; female non-athletes: 4.653āĀ±ā1.473 nV; t(507)ā=ā3.039, pā=ā0.002, dā=ā0.286), while males did not differ (male athlete: 3.900āĀ±ā1.148 nV; male non-athlete: 3.922āĀ±ā1.024 nV; t(501)ā=ā0.193; pā=ā0.847; dā=ā0.020).
There were also main effects of sex and polarity, with females having higher HF responses than males (females: 4.939āĀ±ā1.512 nV; males: 3.906āĀ±ā1.117 nV), and FFRENV being larger than FFRTFS (FFRENV: 4.494āĀ±ā1.637 nV; FFRTFS: 4.358āĀ±ā1.516 nV). HF means and standard deviations for the four groups at each polarity are reported in Table 2.
First formant (F1) encoding
F1 encoding was greater in athletes compared to non-athletes (athletes: 16.991āĀ±ā5.059 nV; non-athletes: 16.435āĀ±ā4.753 nV; Fig.Ā 2; see Table 1 for all RMANOVA statistics). Similar to the sex by athlete effects seen for HF encoding, there was also a trending interaction between sex and athlete status for F1 encoding, suggesting the athlete enhancement was driven by female athletes having more robust responses than non-athlete females (female athletes: 18.733āĀ±ā5.347 nV; female non-athletes: 17.359āĀ±ā5.29; t(507)ā=ā2.740; pā=ā0.006; dā=ā0.258) while male athletes and non-athletes did not differ (male athletes: 15.421āĀ±ā4.211; male non-athletes: 15.196āĀ±ā3.581; t(501)ā=ā0.537; pā=ā0.591; dā=ā0.055).
Females had larger F1 responses than males (females: 18.277āĀ±ā5.362 nV; 15.364āĀ±ā4.06 nV). F1 amplitude, however, did not differ between polarities (FFRENV: 16.661āĀ±ā5.293 nV; FFRTFS: 16.998āĀ±ā6.041 nV). F1 means and standard deviations for the four groups at each polarity are reported in Table 2.
Fundamental frequency (F0) encoding
In contrast to the athlete enhancements found for RC, HF encoding, and F1 encoding, F0 encoding was smaller in athletes than non-athletes (athletes: 35.045āĀ±ā10.598 nV; non-athletes: 37.780āĀ±ā10.668 nV; Fig.Ā 2; see Table 1 for all RMANOVA statistics).
There was also a main effect of sex, with females having larger responses than males (females: 38.596āĀ±ā11.451 nV; males: 33.056āĀ±ā9.044 nV), as well as a main effect of polarity, where responses were larger for FFRENV (FFRENV: 54.948āĀ±ā18.955 nV; FFRTFS: 16.736āĀ±ā6.909 nV). In addition to these main effects, there was an interaction of polarity by sex, which showed that the sex difference was greater for FFRENV (females: 60.066āĀ±ā20.411 nV; males: 49.768āĀ±ā15.766 nV; t(1010)ā=ā8.976, pā<ā0.0005, dā=ā0.564) than for FFRTFS (females: 17.125āĀ±ā6.997 nV; males: 16.343āĀ±ā6.803; t(1010)ā=ā1.801, pā=ā0.072, dā=ā0.113). F0 means and standard deviations for the four groups at each polarity are reported in Table 2.
Peak latencies
There was a main effect of sex on peak timing (F(1, 1006)ā=ā125.898, pā<ā0.001, Ī·p2ā=ā0.111), with females having earlier peaks than males (females: 25.822āĀ±ā0.294Ā ms; males: 26.093āĀ±ā0.345Ā ms; t(1010)ā=ā13.455, pā<ā0.001, dā=ā0.846). Athleticism did not influence peak timing (F(1, 1006)ā=ā0.787, pā=ā0.375, Ī·p2ā=ā0.001). While there was an interaction between sex and athletes (F(1, 1006)ā=ā4.599, pā=ā0.032, Ī·p2ā=ā0.005), only the expected sex differences were evident. Female athletes (25.801āĀ±ā0.283Ā ms) were earlier than male athletes (26.099āĀ±ā0.360Ā ms; t(715)ā=ā12.234, pā<ā0.001, dā=ā0.915) and male non-athletes (26.078āĀ±ā0.299Ā ms; t(464)ā=ā9.243, pā<ā0.001, dā=ā0.964). Female non-athletes (25.865āĀ±ā0.312Ā ms) were earlier than male athletes (t(544)ā=ā7.292, pā<ā0.001, dā=ā0.675) and male non-athletes (t(293)ā=ā5.885, pā<ā0.001, dā=ā0.693). Female athletes and non-athletes (t(507)ā=ā2.339, pā=ā0.01, dā=ā0.220) and male athletes and non-athletes (t(501)ā=ā0.599, pā=ā0.275, dā=ā0.062) did not differ. There were no peak by sex (F(5, 5030)ā=ā1.403, pā=ā0.220, Ī·p2ā=ā0.001), peak by athlete (F(5, 5030)ā=ā0.928, pā=ā0.461, Ī·p2ā=ā0.001) or peak by sex by athlete (F(5, 5030)ā=ā0.176, pā=ā972, Ī·p2ā=ā0) interactions.
Discussion
We compared collegiate male and female student-athletes participating in a Division I (i.e., the highest level of collegiate athletics) sport to their non-athlete peers on auditory processing using the FFR. We found that athletes showed increased across-trial consistency of the response. Athletes exhibited enhanced encoding of harmonic frequencies (F1 and HF), and these effects were especially pronounced in female athletes. F0 encoding, however, was smaller in athletes than non-athletes, contrary to our predictions. We replicated well-established polarity52,53 and sex differences1,13,52 but also found that response consistency is higher in females than males, contrary to previous results13. Interestingly, we found that while females had earlier peak latencies than males, consistent with previous findings1,9,56,57, athlete status had no effect on FFR peak timing, suggesting that the enhancements are specific to harmonic encoding and response consistency, along with the previous reports of lower noise levels29.
Athletes have more consistent responses to sound than non-athletes
Athletes have quieter brains than non-athletes, driven by lower noise levels in the athlete brain29. Neural noise can interfere with auditory processing, leading to smaller and less consistent responses26,52,59. That is, noise can obscure the encoding of the distinct features of a response, and given the stochastic nature of noise, what is obscured one time the sound is heard could be different from what is obscured the next time. The lower levels of neural noise in athletes yield more consistent responses, given that the lower noise levels lead to less interference in the brainās response to sound from one trial to the next. Having a quieter brain and a more consistent response is advantageous for athletic competition because it enables the listener to respond to important auditory cues in their competition.
While we predicted the observed difference between athletes and non-athletes in the consistency of their responses, the sex difference ran counter to our expectations, as we have not seen this component differ between males and females previously13. Because about two-thirds of our females were athletes, the higher number of female athletes might have brought out this sex difference in response consistency. Alternatively, the large number of participants included in these analyses may have allowed this effect to emerge. Thus, while we can conclude that athletes have more consistent neural responses to sound than non-athletes, the observed sex differences in this measure warrants further investigation.
Athleticism enhances harmonic encoding, especially in female athletes
Overall, we found that athletes have stronger encoding of a soundās harmonics. Auditory cues are known to be important for both team and individual sports60. These cues provide information about the direction or speed of a moving object, such as a soccer ball or volleyball35, guide motor action of the athlete32, give feedback about body positioning61, or signal to the athlete that they can initiate play (e.g., a whistle). Speech, in particular, plays a crucial role in many sports. During a football game, the rest of the offense must listen for the commands shouted by the quarterback while ignoring the screams and cheers of the crowd. Volleyball players must communicate among one another to know, for example, who will pass a served ball. A basketball team listens for their point guard to tell them which plays to run. And these athletes, as well as those in individual sports (e.g., singles tennis, swimming), must listen for their coachās feedback being shouted from the sideline. Thus, athletes must hone their auditory systems to pick up on these important cues and signals. We speculate athletes do this by enhancing their encoding of the harmonic frequencies, which could aid in identifying the important incoming auditory information, especially speech. The harmonic frequencies are what comprise speech formants, which play a major role in distinguishing speech sounds, and ultimately words, from one another62,63. Better encoding of these frequencies, then, could aid communication during competition.
Although there was a main effect of athlete status on harmonic encoding, there was also an interaction between sex and athlete status, with post-hoc tests showing the enhancement was greatest for female athletes. Notably, harmonic encoding is the aspect of auditory processing most strongly tethered to hormone levels, with the greatest harmonic encoding occurring in female rodents when estrogen levels were highest8. Consistent with other studies finding that estrogen can lead to sex-specific enhancements in sensory processing36,37,46, estrogen may mediate the pronounced harmonic encoding enhancements seen in female athletes. Additionally, a majority of our male athletes participate in football, a sport that has a high rate of head trauma. It is possible that the higher percentage of males in a contact sport are leading to a dampening of the harmonic enhancement in males. Future studies should examine the role that contact level plays on the athlete harmonic enhancement.
Athletes have smaller F0 encoding: an effect of subconcussion?
Interestingly, while we found that harmonic (F1 and HF) encoding was greater in athletes than non-athletes, we found the opposite effect for encoding of the fundamental frequency. The F0 reduction seen in the athletes could stem from two potential sources, which are not mutually exclusive: (1) athletes with a history of concussion have a lasting reduction in F0 encoding; (2) an accumulation of subconcussive head impacts in the athlete population have fostered an overall decline of F0 encoding in this group. F0 encoding impairments are a hallmark of concussion in acutely injured individuals64,65. Despite some recovery of the F0 as the individual recovers64, a lingering deficit can remain66. Athletes, especially, those participating in contact or collision sports, are at greater risk than non-athletes of sustaining a concussion67. But, even more common for these athletes, is that they regularly sustain subconcussive impacts68,69. These impacts can be to the head or body and are below the threshold that causes overt concussion symptoms. Although subconcussive impacts may be insufficient to cause damage following a single event, neurodegeneration from repetitive hits can accrue over time70,71,72,73. The lingering effects of concussion combined with the gradual accumulation of subconcussive hits could, therefore, lead to poorer F0 encoding in a presumably healthy population. Given that about three-quarters of our athletes participated in collision (football), contact (soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, wrestling), and limited-contact (baseball, softball, basketball, volleyball, diving) sports, these athletes may have sustained more head impacts (both concussive and subconcussive) than their non-athlete peers68,74. Previous studies have found deficits in auditory processing following head injury75,76,77,78, but the effects of head trauma on auditory processing are often overlooked79. Future work should explore links between auditory-processing deficits and head trauma further.
Conclusions
In conclusion, athletic experience impacts the neural processing of sound. First, athletes have more consistent responses to sound. How consistently a brain responds to sound each time it is heard is partly influenced by the levels of noise in the brain26,52. The lower noise levels29 enable the athlete brain to respond more consistently to a sound over time. Second, athletes have more robust encoding of the harmonic frequencies of sound, providing them important information about the identity of the sound or the meaning of words. This harmonic encoding enhancement was more prominent for the female athletes, suggesting a role of estrogen in mediating this enhancement. Lastly, encoding of the fundamental frequency was poorer in athletes compared to non-athletes, which may indicate a persistent effect of head trauma in these individuals. Future research should investigate the link between decreased F0 encoding and long-term effects of head impacts in healthy athletes.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 1012 (509 female) college-aged individuals recruited from a Midwestern U.S. university (MāĀ±āSD ageā=ā19.432āĀ±ā1.186Ā years, age rangeā=ā17.5ā22Ā years). Of these, 717 (340 female) were National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I student-athletes and 295 (169 female) were non-athletes (see Table 3 for breakdown by sport). Division I sports are the highest level of intercollegiate athletics sanctioned by the NCAA. Comparisons were made among female athletes (19.322āĀ±ā1.097Ā years), male athletes (19.515āĀ±ā1.105Ā years), female non-athletes (19.539āĀ±ā1.383Ā years), and male non-athletes (19.339āĀ±ā1.339Ā years). The four groups were matched on age (F(3, 1011)ā=ā2.324, pā=ā0.073; Ī·p2ā=ā0.007). All procedures were approved by the Universityās Institutional Review Board (IRB) and completed according to the rules and regulations set forth by this committee and the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants provided informed consent to participate and were compensated monetarily for their time.
Stimulus and recording parameters
The frequency-following response (FFR) was elicited by a synthesized speech sound80, ādaā, described previously in detail1,8. Briefly, the ādaā is 40-ms in duration, beginning with a noise burst, followed by a formant transition between the ādā and the āaā. The fundamental frequency (F0) and first three formants (F1, F2, F3) change linearly over the formant transition from 103ā125Ā Hz, 220ā720Ā Hz, 1700ā1240Ā Hz, and 2580ā2500Ā Hz, respectively. The fourth (F4, 3600Ā Hz) and fifth (F5, 4500Ā Hz) are constant. The ādaā was presented monaurally through a shielded insert earphone (ER-3A, Natus Medical Inc., Mundelein, IL) to the right ear via alternating polarity at a rate of 10.9Ā Hz and intensity of 80Ā dB SPL. To collect the FFRs, the participant sat comfortably in a darkened, quiet room while the FFR was passively recorded by Ag/AgCl electrodes affixed to the participant in an ipsilateral vertical montage, with active at Cz, reference on the right ear lobe, and ground on the forehead. FFRs were collected in Bio-logic Navigator Pro AEP (Natus Medical Inc., Mundelein, IL) using an epoch window that began 15.8Ā ms prior to stimulus onset to capture background neural activity. Online, responses were filtered from 100 to 2000Ā Hz and artifact rejected atāĀ±ā23,800 nV. For each participant, two averaged waveforms were recorded successively, each containing 3000 artifact-free responses, 1500 of each polarity. For the frequency measures described below, these two FFRs were combined to create an averaged response of 6000 artifact-free sweeps.
Data processing
FFRs were generated in two ways: one in which responses from the two polarities are added together to accentuate the envelope (ENV) and lower-frequency components of the response, and one in which the responses are subtracted to accentuate higher-frequency temporal fine structure (TFS) components52,53. For each participantās FFRENV and FFRTFS, we computed four measures over the 19.5ā44.2Ā ms time region of the response, a region of the response that tracks the periodicity of the frequencies in the sound. Three of these were measures of averaged spectral amplitudes calculated over ranges encompassing the F0 (75ā175Ā Hz), F1 (175ā750Ā Hz), and frequencies between the first and second formant (750ā1250Ā Hz, subsequently referred to as high frequencies, or HF) that are still within the phase-locking capabilities of the midbrain81, the primary generator of the FFR47,50,82. The fourth measure was the across-trial response consistency of the FFR, calculated by correlating the averages from the first half and last half of the recording session using a Pearson product-moment correlation, with r-values closer to 1 representing more consistent responses. Because the FFRENV response is low-frequency biased, the amplitude of the F0 is larger in this response than in the FFRTFS response, while differences in F1 and HF amplitude between the two tend to be smaller52,53. Additionally, the low-frequency bias of the FFRENV response results in higher response consistency values compared to the FFRTFS13. Lastly, sex differences are greater in the FFRENV component compared to the FFRTFS component13. We expected that the current analyses would yield results in line with these well-established polarity effects.
Peak latencies were determined for peaks V, A, D, E, F, and O, occurring at approximately 6.6Ā ms, 7.6Ā ms, 22.5, 31, 39.5, and 48Ā ms, respectively. Peaks were picked by an experienced peak picker based on previously established methods1. Peaks were checked by two expert pickers blind to participant group.
Statistical analyses
For each FFR measure, except latency, we ran a 2 (polarity: FFRENV v. FFRTFS)āĆā2 (sex: male v. female)āĆā2 (group: athlete v. non-athlete) repeated-measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) in SPSS (Version 28, IBM Inc., Chicago, IL). Latencies were compared between groups on the FFRENV response using a 6 (peak: V, A, D, E, F, O)āĆā2 (sex: male v. female)āĆā2 (group: athlete v. non-athlete) repeated-measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) in SPSS. While across group analyses considered each peak separately, means and standard deviations in the text were reported as an average of the 6 peaks for each participant since there were no interactions with peak. Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc t-tests, using a pā<ā0.0083 criterion, were run on any significant interaction to explore these effects further. While figures and descriptive statistics provide r values, these values were Fisher-transformed prior to analyzing to increase the normality of the distribution.
Data availability
Data and materials are available upon request by contacting the corresponding author (nkraus@northwestern.edu).
References
Krizman, J., Skoe, E. & Kraus, N. Sex differences in auditory subcortical function. Clin. Neurophysiol. 123, 590ā597 (2012).
Jerger, J. & Johnson, K. Interactions of age, gender, and sensorineural hearing loss on ABR latency. Ear Hear. 9, 168ā176 (1988).
McFadden, D. Sex differences in the auditory system. Dev. Neuropsychol. 14, 261ā298 (1998).
Yoder, K. M., Phan, M. L., Lu, K. & Vicario, D. S. He hears, she hears: Are there sex differences in auditory processing?. Dev. Neurobiol. 75, 302ā314 (2015).
Coleman, J. R., Campbell, D., Cooper, W. A., Welsh, M. G. & Moyer, J. Auditory brainstem responses after ovariectomy and estrogen replacement in rat. Hear. Res. 80, 209ā215 (1994).
Sisneros, J. A., Forlano, P. M., Deitcher, D. L. & Bass, A. H. Steroid-dependent auditory plasticity leads to adaptive coupling of sender and receiver. Science 305, 404ā407 (2004).
Shuster, B. Z., Depireux, D. A., Mong, J. A. & Hertzano, R. Sex differences in hearing: Probing the role of estrogen signaling. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 145, 3656ā3663 (2019).
Krizman, J., Rotondo, E. K., Nicol, T., Kraus, N. & Bieszczad, K. Sex differences in auditory processing vary across estrous cycle. Sci. Rep. 11, 1ā7 (2021).
Krizman, J., Bonacina, S. & Kraus, N. Sex differences in subcortical auditory processing emerge across development. Hear. Res. 380, 166ā174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2019.07.002 (2019).
Marshall, W. Sex differences at puberty. J. Biosoc. Sci. 2, 31ā41 (1970).
Marshall, W. A. & Tanner, J. M. Variations in pattern of pubertal changes in girls. Arch. Dis. Child. 44, 291 (1969).
Marshall, W. A. & Tanner, J. M. Variations in the pattern of pubertal changes in boys. Arch. Dis. Child. 45, 13ā23 (1970).
Krizman, J., Bonacina, S. & Kraus, N. Sex differences in subcortical auditory processing only partially explain higher prevalence of language disorders in males. Hear. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2020.108075 (2020).
Kraus, N. Memory for sound: The BEAMS hypothesis [Perspective]. Hear. Res. 407, 1 (2021).
Kraus, N. & White-Schwoch, T. Unraveling the biology of auditory learning: A cognitiveāsensorimotorāreward framework. Trends Cogn. Sci. 19, 642ā654 (2015).
Bidelman, G. M., Gandour, J. T. & Krishnan, A. Cross-domain effects of music and language experience on the representation of pitch in the human auditory brainstem. J. Cogn. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21362 (2009).
Krishnan, A., Suresh, C. H. & Gandour, J. T. Tone language experience-dependent advantage in pitch representation in brainstem and auditory cortex is maintained under reverberation. Hear. Res. 377, 61ā71 (2019).
Oliver, D. L., Izquierdo, M. A. & Malmierca, M. Persistent effects of early augmented acoustic environment on the auditory brainstem. Neuroscience 184, 75ā87 (2011).
Kraus, N. & Chandrasekaran, B. Music training for the development of auditory skills. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 599ā605 (2010).
Krizman, J., Marian, V., Shook, A., Skoe, E. & Kraus, N. Subcortical encoding of sound is enhanced in bilinguals and relates to executive function advantages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 7877ā7881. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201575109 (2012).
Kraus, N. & White-Schwoch, T. Neurobiology of everyday communication: What have we learned from music?. Neuroscientist 23, 287ā298 (2017).
Skoe, E., Burakiewicz, E., Figueiredo, M. & Hardin, M. Basic neural processing of sound in adults is influenced by bilingual experience. Neuroscience 349, 278ā290 (2017).
Krishnan, A., Xu, Y., Gandour, J. & Cariani, P. Encoding of pitch in the human brainstem is sensitive to language experience. Cogn. Brain Res. 25, 161ā168 (2005).
Kachlicka, M., Saito, K. & Tierney, A. Successful second language learning is tied to robust domain-general auditory processing and stable neural representation of sound. Brain Lang. 192, 15ā24 (2019).
Giroud, N., Baum, S. R., Gilbert, A. C., Phillips, N. A. & Gracco, V. Earlier age of second language learning induces more robust speech encoding in the auditory brainstem in adults, independent of amount of language exposure during early childhood. Brain Lang. 207, 104815 (2020).
Skoe, E., Krizman, J. & Kraus, N. The impoverished brain: Disparities in maternal education affect the neural response to sound. J. Neurosci. 33, 17221ā17231 (2013).
Evans, G. W. & Kantrowitz, E. Socioeconomic status and health: The potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annu. Rev. Public Health 23, 303ā331 (2002).
Darmon, N. & Drewnowski, A. Contribution of food prices and diet cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: A systematic review and analysis. Nutr. Rev. 73, 643ā660 (2015).
Krizman, J. et al. Play sports for a quieter brain: Evidence from division I collegiate athletes. Sports Health 12, 154ā158 (2020).
Kasabalis, A., Douda, H. & Tokmakidis, S. P. Relationship between anaerobic power and jumping of selected male volleyball players of different ages. Percept. Mot. Skills 100, 607ā614 (2005).
Schaal, M., Ransdell, L. B., Simonson, S. R. & Gao, Y. Physiologic performance test differences in female volleyball athletes by competition level and player position. J. Strength Cond. Res. 27, 1841ā1850 (2013).
Agostini, T., Righi, G., Galmonte, A. & Bruno, P. in Biomechanics and sports 67ā74 (Springer, 2004).
Camponogara, I., Rodger, M., Craig, C. & Cesari, P. Expert players accurately detect an opponentās movement intentions through sound alone. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 43, 348 (2017).
Murgia, M., Hohmann, T., Galmonte, A., Raab, M. & Agostini, T. Recognising oneās own motor actions through sound: The role of temporal factors. Perception 41, 976ā987 (2012).
Sors, F. et al. The contribution of early auditory and visual information to the discrimination of shot power in ball sports. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 31, 44ā51 (2017).
Burris, K., Liu, S. & Appelbaum, L. Visual-motor expertise in athletes: Insights from semiparametric modelling of 2317 athletes tested on the Nike SPARQ Sensory Station. J. Sports Sci. 38, 320ā329 (2020).
Hijazi, M. M. K. Attention, visual perception and their relationship to sport performance in fencing. J. Hum. Kinet. 39, 195 (2013).
Ireland, M. L. & Ott, S. M. Special concerns of the female athlete. Clin. Sports Med. 23, 281ā298 (2004).
Borgstrom, H. & McInnis, K. C. Female athlete hip injuries: A narrative review. Clin. J. Sport Med. 32, 62ā71 (2022).
Brown, D. A., Elsass, J. A., Miller, A. J., Reed, L. E. & Reneker, J. C. Differences in symptom reporting between males and females at baseline and after a sports-related concussion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 45, 1027ā1040 (2015).
McGroarty, N. K., Brown, S. M. & Mulcahey, M. K. Sport-related concussion in female athletes: A systematic review. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 8, 2325967120932306 (2020).
Liu, S. H., Al-Shaikh, R. A., Panossian, V., Finerman, G. A. & Lane, J. M. Estrogen affects the cellular metabolism of the anterior cruciate ligament: A potential explanation for female athletic injury. Am. J. Sports Med. 25, 704ā709 (1997).
Roof, R. L. & Hall, E. D. Estrogen-related gender difference in survival rate and cortical blood flow after impact-acceleration head injury in rats. J. Neurotrauma 17, 1155ā1169 (2000).
Wunderle, M. K., Hoeger, K. M., Wasserman, M. E. & Bazarian, J. J. Menstrual phase as predictor of outcome after mild traumatic brain injury in women. J. Head Trauma Rehabil. 29, E1 (2014).
Lin, C. Y., Casey, E., Herman, D. C., Katz, N. & Tenforde, A. S. Sex differences in common sports injuries. PM&R 10, 1073ā1082 (2018).
Gentilin, A., Skroce, K., Schena, F. & Tarperi, C. Prolonged visual reaction time after strenuous endurance exercise: Higher increment in male compared to female recreational runners. Sport Sci. Health 16, 169ā176 (2020).
Chandrasekaran, B. & Kraus, N. The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: Neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology 47, 236ā246 (2010).
White-Schwoch, T., Nicol, T., Warrier, C. M., Abrams, D. A. & Kraus, N. Individual differences in human auditory processing: Insights from single-trial auditory midbrain activity in an animal model. Cereb. Cortex (2016).
Bidelman, G. M. Subcortical sources dominate the neuroelectric auditory frequency-following response to speech. Neuroimage 175, 56ā69 (2018).
White-Schwoch, T., Anderson, S., Krizman, J., Nicol, T. & Kraus, N. Case studies in neuroscience: Subcortical origins of the frequency-following response. J. Neurophysiol. 122, 844ā848 (2019).
Skoe, E. & Kraus, N. Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: A tutorial. Ear Hear. 31, 302ā324. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181cdb272 (2010).
Krizman, J. & Kraus, N. Analyzing the FFR: A tutorial for decoding the richness of auditory function. Hear. Res. 382, 107779 (2019).
Aiken, S. J. & Picton, T. W. Envelope and spectral frequency-following responses to vowel sounds. Hear. Res. 245, 35ā47 (2008).
Russo, N., Nicol, T., Musacchia, G. & Kraus, N. Brainstem responses to speech syllables. Clin. Neurophysiol. 115, 2021ā2030 (2004).
Kırbac, A., Turkyılmaz, M. D. & YaÄcıoglu, S. Gender effects on binaural speech auditory brainstem response. J. Int. Adv. Otol. 18 (2022).
Liu, J., Fu, X., Wang, D., Li, X. & Wang, N. The sex difference of speech evoked auditory brainstem responses in children and young adults. Zhonghua er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi= Chin. J. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 51, 583ā588 (2016).
Jerger, J. & Hall, J. Effects of age and sex on auditory brainstem response. Arch. Otolaryngol. 106, 387ā391 (1980).
Patterson, J. V., Michalewski, H. J., Thompson, L. W., Bowman, T. E. & Litzelman, D. K. Age and sex differences in the human auditory brainstem response. J. Gerontol. 36, 455ā462 (1981).
Otto-Meyer, S., Krizman, J., White-Schwoch, T. & Kraus, N. Children with autism spectrum disorder have unstable neural responses to sound. Exp. Brain Res. 236, 733ā743 (2018).
Schaffert, N., Mattes, K. & Effenberg, A. O. in Auditory Display 143ā165 (Springer, 2009).
Baudry, L., Leroy, D., Thouvarecq, R. & Chollet, D. Auditory concurrent feedback benefits on the circle performed in gymnastics. J. Sports Sci. 24, 149ā156 (2006).
Ladefoged, P. & Broadbent, D. E. Information conveyed by vowels. The J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 29, 98ā104 (1957).
Halle, M., Hughes, G. W. & Radley, J. P. Acoustic properties of stop consonants. J. Acoustical Soc. Am. 29, 107ā116 (1957).
Kraus, N. et al. Auditory biological marker of concussion in children. Sci. Rep. 97, e11 (2016).
Rauterkus, G., Moncrieff, D., Stewart, G. & Skoe, E. Baseline, retest, and post-injury profiles of auditory neural function in collegiate football players. Int. J. Audiol. 60, 650ā662 (2021).
Kraus, N. et al. The neural legacy of a single concussion. Neurosci. Lett. 646, 21ā23 (2017).
Musumeci, G., Ravalli, S., Amorini, A. M. & Lazzarino, G. Concussion in sports. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 4, 37 (2019).
Lust, C. A., Mountjoy, M., Robinson, L. E., Oliver, J. M. & Ma, D. W. Sports-related concussions and subconcussive impacts in athletes: Incidence, diagnosis, and the emerging role of EPA and DHA. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 45, 886ā892 (2020).
McKee, A. C. et al. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in athletes: Progressive tauopathy after repetitive head injury. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 68, 709ā735 (2009).
Bari, S. et al. Dependence on subconcussive impacts of brain metabolism in collision sport athletes: An MR spectroscopic study. Brain Imaging Behav. 13, 735ā749 (2019).
Abbas, K. et al. Alteration of default mode network in high school football athletes due to repetitive subconcussive mild traumatic brain injury: A resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Brain Connect. 5, 91ā101 (2015).
Breedlove, K. M. et al. Detecting neurocognitive and neurophysiological changes as a result of subconcussive blows among high school football athletes. Athletic Train. Sports Health Care 6, 119ā127 (2014).
Baugh, C. M. et al. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy: Neurodegeneration following repetitive concussive and subconcussive brain trauma. Brain Imag. Behav. 6, 244ā254 (2012).
Spiotta, A. M., Shin, J. H., Bartsch, A. J. & Benzel, E. C. Subconcussive impact in sports: A new era of awareness. World Neurosurg. 2, 175ā178 (2011).
Fausti, S. A., Wilmington, D. J., Gallun, F. J., Myers, P. J. & Henry, J. A. Auditory and vestibular dysfunction associated with blast-related traumatic brain injury. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 46, 797ā810 (2009).
Papesh, M. A., Theodoroff, S. M. & Gallun, F. J. Traumatic brain injury and auditory processing. Hyperacusis and disorders of sound intolerance: Clinical and research perspectives. Plural Publishing. San Diego, CA, 149ā166 (2018).
Vander Werff, K. R. & Rieger, B. Brainstem evoked potential indices of subcortical auditory processing after mild traumatic brain injury. Ear Hear. 38, e200āe214 (2017).
Vander Werff, K. R. & Rieger, B. Impaired auditory processing and neural representation of speech in noise among symptomatic post-concussion adults. Brain Inj 33, 1320ā1331 (2019).
Theodoroff, S. M. et al. Vol. 32 82ā85 (LWW, 2022).
Klatt, D. Software for cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67, 971ā975 (1980).
Liang-Fa, L., Alan, R. P. & Mark, N. W. Phase-locked responses to pure tones in the inferior colliculus. J. Neurophysiol. 95, 10p (2006).
Coffey, E. B. et al. Evolving perspectives on the sources of the frequency-following response. Nat. Commun. 10, 1ā10 (2019).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank members of the Auditory Neuroscience Laboratory, past and present, for their help with data collection. This work was funded by National Institutes of Health grant R01-NS102500 (NK) and the Knowles Hearing Center, Northwestern University (NK). The authors declare no competing interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: J.K., D.C., T.N., N.K.; Methodology: J.K., T.N., N.K.; Investigation: J.K., S.B., R.O.M.; Visualization: J.K.; Funding acquisition: N.K.; Supervision: J.K., D.C., N.K.; Writing ā original draft: J.K.; Writing ā review & editing: J.K., S.B., D.C., R.O.M., T.N., N.K.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Krizman, J., Bonacina, S., Colegrove, D. et al. Athleticism and sex impact neural processing of sound. Sci Rep 12, 15181 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19216-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19216-2
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.