Top-down modulation of neural envelope tracking: the interplay with behavioral, self-report and neural measures of listening effort

When listening to natural speech, our neural activity tracks the speech envelope. Moreover, recent research has demonstrated that this neural envelope tracking can be affected by top-down processes. The present study was designed to examine if neural envelope tracking is modulated by the effort that a person expends during listening. Five measures were included to quantify listening effort: two behavioral measures based on a novel dual-task paradigm, a self-report effort measure and two neural measures related to neural phase synchronization and alpha power. Electroencephalography responses to sentences, presented at a wide range of subject-specific signal-to-noise ratios, were recorded in thirteen young, normal-hearing adults. A comparison of the five measures revealed different effects of listening effort as a function of speech understanding. Reaction times on the primary task and self-reported effort decreased with increasing speech understanding. In contrast, reaction times on the secondary task and alpha power showed a peak-shaped behavior with highest effort at intermediate speech understanding levels. We found a positive association between envelope tracking and speech understanding. While a significant effect of listening effort was found on theta-band envelope tracking, the effect size was negligible. Therefore, our results suggest that listening effort is not a confound when using envelope tracking to objectively measure speech understanding in young, normal-hearing adults.

[1]  A. Zekveld,et al.  Cognitive processing load across a wide range of listening conditions: insights from pupillometry. , 2014, Psychophysiology.

[2]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Jonathan Z. Simon,et al.  Restoration and Efficiency of the Neural Processing of Continuous Speech Are Promoted by Prior Knowledge , 2018, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[4]  R. Whelan Effective Analysis of Reaction Time Data , 2008 .

[5]  Sibylle Bertoli,et al.  Effects of age and task difficulty on ERP responses to novel sounds presented during a speech-perception-in-noise test , 2016, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[6]  A. Zekveld,et al.  The influence of informational masking on speech perception and pupil response in adults with hearing impairment. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Tobias Reichenbach,et al.  Neural Speech Tracking in the Theta and in the Delta Frequency Band Differentially Encode Clarity and Comprehension of Speech in Noise , 2019, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[9]  Stefanie E. Kuchinsky,et al.  Best Practices and Advice for Using Pupillometry to Measure Listening Effort: An Introduction for Those Who Want to Get Started , 2018, Trends in hearing.

[10]  Erin M Picou,et al.  The relationship between speech recognition, behavioural listening effort, and subjective ratings , 2018, International journal of audiology.

[11]  Alexander Bertrand,et al.  EEG-based auditory attention detection: boundary conditions for background noise and speaker positions. , 2018, Journal of neural engineering.

[12]  Ingrid S. Johnsrude,et al.  The eye as a window to the listening brain: Neural correlates of pupil size as a measure of cognitive listening load , 2014, NeuroImage.

[13]  A. Coenen,et al.  Effects of diazepam and zolpidem on EEG beta frequencies are behavior-specific in rats , 2004, Neuropharmacology.

[14]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Atypical neural synchronization to speech envelope modulations in dyslexia , 2017, Brain and Language.

[15]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  Effect of Speech Rate on Neural Tracking of Speech , 2019, Front. Psychol..

[16]  Barak A. Pearlmutter,et al.  The VESPA: A method for the rapid estimation of a visual evoked potential , 2006, NeuroImage.

[17]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Response times to speech stimuli as measures of benefit from amplification. , 1990, British journal of audiology.

[18]  Adriana A Zekveld,et al.  The Pupil Dilation Response to Auditory Stimuli: Current State of Knowledge , 2018, Trends in hearing.

[19]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Neural responses to uninterrupted natural speech can be extracted with precise temporal resolution , 2010, The European journal of neuroscience.

[20]  Astrid van Wieringen,et al.  How age affects memory task performance in clinically normal hearing persons , 2017, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition.

[21]  Alessandro Presacco,et al.  Effect of informational content of noise on speech representation in the aging midbrain and cortex. , 2016, Journal of neurophysiology.

[22]  A. Zekveld,et al.  Pupil Response as an Indication of Effortful Listening: The Influence of Sentence Intelligibility , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[23]  U. Lemke,et al.  Behavioral Assessment of Listening Effort Using a Dual-Task Paradigm , 2017, Trends in hearing.

[24]  Alexander Bertrand,et al.  Auditory-Inspired Speech Envelope Extraction Methods for Improved EEG-Based Auditory Attention Detection in a Cocktail Party Scenario , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.

[25]  T. Lunner,et al.  The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances , 2013, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[26]  D. Lesenfants,et al.  Predicting individual speech intelligibility from the cortical tracking of acoustic- and phonetic-level speech representations , 2019, Hearing Research.

[27]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Hearing Impairment and Cognitive Energy: The Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening (FUEL) , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[28]  D. Thomson,et al.  Spectrum estimation and harmonic analysis , 1982, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[29]  Daniel J. Strauss,et al.  Neural correlates of listening effort related factors: Influence of age and hearing impairment , 2013, Brain Research Bulletin.

[30]  David R Moore,et al.  Neural indices of listening effort in noisy environments , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[31]  Ronny K. Ibrahim,et al.  Objective Assessment of Listening Effort: Coregistration of Pupillometry and EEG , 2017, Trends in hearing.

[32]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Validation of a simple response-time measure of listening effort. , 2015, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Usha Goswami,et al.  Neural encoding of the speech envelope by children with developmental dyslexia , 2016, Brain and Language.

[34]  Yu-Hsiang Wu,et al.  Psychometric Functions of Dual-Task Paradigms for Measuring Listening Effort , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[35]  Erin M Picou,et al.  The Effect of Changing the Secondary Task in Dual-Task Paradigms for Measuring Listening Effort , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[36]  Jean-Pierre Gagné,et al.  Use of a Dual-Task Paradigm to Measure Listening Effort Utilisation d ’ un paradigme de double tâche pour mesurer l ’ attention auditive , 2010 .

[37]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Speech Intelligibility Predicted from Neural Entrainment of the Speech Envelope , 2018, bioRxiv.

[38]  Giso Grimm,et al.  Multicenter evaluation of signal enhancement algorithms for hearing aids. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  Heleen Luts,et al.  Development and normative data for the Flemish/Dutch Matrix test , 2014 .

[40]  Alexander Bertrand,et al.  A generic EEG artifact removal algorithm based on the multi-channel Wiener filter , 2018, Journal of neural engineering.

[41]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Impact of stimulus-related factors and hearing impairment on listening effort as indicated by pupil dilation , 2017, Hearing Research.

[42]  Birger Kollmeier,et al.  An Eye-Tracking Paradigm for Analyzing the Processing Time of Sentences with Different Linguistic Complexities , 2014, PloS one.

[43]  T. Lunner,et al.  Working memory capacity may influence perceived effort during aided speech recognition in noise. , 2012, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[44]  Hannah Keppler,et al.  The Effect of Age on Listening Effort. , 2015, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[45]  Ben Somers,et al.  Neural envelope tracking as a measure of speech understanding in cochlear implant users , 2019, Hearing Research.

[46]  Erin M Picou,et al.  A Potential Bias in Subjective Ratings of Mental Effort. , 2018, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[47]  Daniel J. Strauss,et al.  Objective assessment of listening effort in the oscillatory EEG: Comparison of different hearing aid configurations , 2014, 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[48]  Rebecca E. Millman,et al.  Measures of Listening Effort Are Multidimensional , 2019, Ear and hearing.

[49]  Rand R. Wilcox,et al.  Modern Robust Statistical Methods: Basics with Illustrations Using Psychobiological Data , 2013 .

[50]  J. Simon,et al.  Cortical entrainment to continuous speech: functional roles and interpretations , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[51]  Daniel J. Strauss,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of listening effort: neurodynamical modeling and measurement , 2010, Cognitive Neurodynamics.

[52]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Attentional Selection in a Cocktail Party Environment Can Be Decoded from Single-Trial EEG. , 2015, Cerebral cortex.

[53]  J. Simon,et al.  Emergence of neural encoding of auditory objects while listening to competing speakers , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[54]  Edmund C. Lalor,et al.  Causal cortical dynamics of a predictive enhancement of speech intelligibility , 2018, NeuroImage.

[55]  J. Cummings,et al.  The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment , 2005, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[56]  Rolph Houben,et al.  Using response time to speech as a measure for listening effort , 2013, International journal of audiology.

[57]  Alexander Bertrand,et al.  The effect of head-related filtering and ear-specific decoding bias on auditory attention detection , 2016, Journal of neural engineering.

[58]  Thomas Lunner,et al.  Effects of Hearing Impairment and Hearing Aid Amplification on Listening Effort: A Systematic Review , 2017, Ear and hearing.

[59]  R. Ratcliff Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[60]  D. Kahneman Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[61]  U. Lemke,et al.  Cognitive Load and Listening Effort: Concepts and Age-Related Considerations , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[62]  Tom Francart,et al.  Evidence for enhanced neural tracking of the speech envelope underlying age-related speech-in-noise difficulties , 2018, bioRxiv.

[63]  J. Peelle Listening Effort: How the Cognitive Consequences of Acoustic Challenge Are Reflected in Brain and Behavior , 2017, Ear and hearing.

[64]  Jean-Pierre Gagné,et al.  Older adults expend more listening effort than young adults recognizing speech in noise. , 2011, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[65]  S. Coren The lateral preference inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: Norms for young adults , 1993 .

[66]  Erin M Picou,et al.  Visual cues and listening effort: individual variability. , 2011, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[67]  Burkhard Maess,et al.  Adverse Listening Conditions and Memory Load Drive a Common Alpha Oscillatory Network , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[68]  Kenneth Hugdahl,et al.  A Standard Computerized Version of the Reading Span Test in Different Languages , 2008 .

[69]  Jan Wouters,et al.  APEX 3: a multi-purpose test platform for auditory psychophysical experiments , 2008, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[70]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[71]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Resolving precise temporal processing properties of the auditory system using continuous stimuli. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.