Contributions of Sensory Coding and Attentional Control to Individual Differences in Performance in Spatial Auditory Selective Attention Tasks

Listeners with normal hearing thresholds (NHTs) differ in their ability to steer attention to whatever sound source is important. This ability depends on top-down executive control, which modulates the sensory representation of sound in the cortex. Yet, this sensory representation also depends on the coding fidelity of the peripheral auditory system. Both of these factors may thus contribute to the individual differences in performance. We designed a selective auditory attention paradigm in which we could simultaneously measure envelope following responses (EFRs, reflecting peripheral coding), onset event-related potentials (ERPs) from the scalp (reflecting cortical responses to sound) and behavioral scores. We performed two experiments that varied stimulus conditions to alter the degree to which performance might be limited due to fine stimulus details vs. due to control of attentional focus. Consistent with past work, in both experiments we find that attention strongly modulates cortical ERPs. Importantly, in Experiment I, where coding fidelity limits the task, individual behavioral performance correlates with subcortical coding strength (derived by computing how the EFR is degraded for fully masked tones compared to partially masked tones); however, in this experiment, the effects of attention on cortical ERPs were unrelated to individual subject performance. In contrast, in Experiment II, where sensory cues for segregation are robust (and thus less of a limiting factor on task performance), inter-subject behavioral differences correlate with subcortical coding strength. In addition, after factoring out the influence of subcortical coding strength, behavioral differences are also correlated with the strength of attentional modulation of ERPs. These results support the hypothesis that behavioral abilities amongst listeners with NHTs can arise due to both subcortical coding differences and differences in attentional control, depending on stimulus characteristics and task demands.

[1]  T. Lunner,et al.  Cognitive Hearing Science : The lagacy of Stuart Gatehouse , 2010 .

[2]  Yoshitaka Nakajima,et al.  Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound Albert S. Bregman , 1992 .

[3]  Hari M. Bharadwaj,et al.  A comparison of spectral magnitude and phase-locking value analyses of the frequency-following response to complex tones. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Douglas S. Brungart,et al.  Interactions between listening effort and masker type on the energetic and informational masking of speech stimuli , 2013 .

[5]  G. Galbraith,et al.  Selective attention affects human brain stem frequency-following response , 2003, Neuroreport.

[6]  P. Tun,et al.  The effects of aging on auditory processing and cognition. , 2012, American journal of audiology.

[7]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[8]  R. Carlyon,et al.  Effects of location, frequency region, and time course of selective attention on auditory scene analysis. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  Effects of Age and Hearing Impairment on the Ability to Benefit From Temporal and Spectral Modulation , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[10]  A. Wingfield,et al.  Word Recognition Within a Linguistic Context: Effects of Age, Hearing Acuity, Verbal Ability, and Cognitive Function , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[11]  B C Moore,et al.  Pitch discrimination and phase sensitivity in young and elderly subjects and its relationship to frequency selectivity. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Bruce A. Schneider,et al.  The effect of age on auditory spatial attention in conditions of real and simulated spatial separation. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  I. Nelken Demonstrations of Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound by Albert S. Bregman and Pierre A. Ahad, MIT Press, 1996. £15.95 CD , 1997, Trends in Neurosciences.

[14]  Marc Schönwiesner,et al.  Selective Attention Modulates Human Auditory Brainstem Responses: Relative Contributions of Frequency and Spatial Cues , 2014, PloS one.

[15]  M. Pichora-Fuller,et al.  Age affects responses on the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) by adults with minimal audiometric loss. , 2012, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[16]  Erika Skoe,et al.  Neural Processing of Speech Sounds in ASD and First-Degree Relatives , 2010, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.

[17]  Robert J. Zatorre,et al.  Individual Differences in the Frequency-Following Response: Relation to Pitch Perception , 2016, PloS one.

[18]  S. David,et al.  Auditory attention : focusing the searchlight on sound , 2007 .

[19]  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Normal hearing is not enough to guarantee robust encoding of suprathreshold features important in everyday communication , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  D. McAlpine,et al.  Tinnitus with a Normal Audiogram: Physiological Evidence for Hidden Hearing Loss and Computational Model , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  Hari M. Bharadwaj,et al.  Cochlear neuropathy and the coding of supra-threshold sound , 2014, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[22]  Ananthanarayan Krishnan,et al.  Enhanced brainstem encoding predicts musicians’ perceptual advantages with pitch , 2011, The European journal of neuroscience.

[23]  John H Grose,et al.  Age Effects in Temporal Envelope Processing: Speech Unmasking and Auditory Steady State Responses , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[24]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Age-related differences in identification and discrimination of temporal cues in speech segments. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Christopher J. Smalt,et al.  Relationship between brainstem, cortical and behavioral measures relevant to pitch salience in humans , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  Hari M. Bharadwaj,et al.  Bottom-up influences of voice continuity in focusing selective auditory attention , 2014, Psychological research.

[27]  J. Grose,et al.  Processing of Temporal Fine Structure as a Function of Age , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[28]  M. Liberman,et al.  Noise-induced cochlear neuropathy is selective for fibers with low spontaneous rates. , 2013, Journal of neurophysiology.

[29]  Graham Naylor,et al.  Self-assessed hearing abilities in middle- and older-age adults: A stratified sampling approach , 2012, International journal of audiology.

[30]  J. Dubno,et al.  Age and Measurement Time-of-Day Effects on Speech Recognition in Noise , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[31]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[32]  Elisabeth Dévière,et al.  Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R , 2009 .

[33]  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Spatial Selective Auditory Attention in the Presence of Reverberant Energy: Individual Differences in Normal-Hearing Listeners , 2011, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[34]  Sandra Gordon-Salant,et al.  Recognition of time-compressed and natural speech with selective temporal enhancements by young and elderly listeners. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[35]  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Individual differences in attentional modulation of cortical responses correlate with selective attention performance , 2014, Hearing Research.

[36]  Lee M. Miller,et al.  Auditory attentional control and selection during cocktail party listening. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[37]  D. Moore,et al.  Prevalence of clinical referrals having hearing thresholds within normal limits , 2011, International journal of audiology.

[38]  M. Liberman,et al.  Adding Insult to Injury: Cochlear Nerve Degeneration after “Temporary” Noise-Induced Hearing Loss , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[39]  Hari M. Bharadwaj,et al.  Individual Differences in Temporal Perception and Their Implications for Everyday Listening , 2017 .

[40]  B. Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Selective Attention in Normal and Impaired Hearing , 2008, Trends in amplification.

[41]  T W Picton,et al.  Human auditory evoked potentials. II. Effects of attention. , 1974, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[42]  Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham,et al.  Influences of auditory object formation on phonemic restoration. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  R. Burkard Human Auditory Evoked Potentials , 2010 .

[44]  M. Liberman,et al.  Primary Neural Degeneration in the Guinea Pig Cochlea After Reversible Noise-Induced Threshold Shift , 2011, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[45]  S. Gordon-Salant,et al.  Speech Perception in Quiet and Noise Using the Hearing in Noise Test and the Japanese Hearing in Noise Test by Japanese Listeners , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[46]  Jonas Obleser,et al.  Alpha Rhythms in Audition: Cognitive and Clinical Perspectives , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[47]  D. Bates,et al.  Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS , 2001 .

[48]  Hari M. Bharadwaj,et al.  Individual Differences Reveal Correlates of Hidden Hearing Deficits , 2015, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[49]  S. Rose Selective attention , 1992, Nature.

[50]  Hari M. Bharadwaj,et al.  Rapid acquisition of auditory subcortical steady state responses using multichannel recordings , 2014, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[51]  B Giesbrecht,et al.  Neural mechanisms of top-down control during spatial and feature attention , 2003, NeuroImage.

[52]  B. Schneider,et al.  Time Course and Cost of Misdirecting Auditory Spatial Attention in Younger and Older Adults , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[53]  Christopher J. Plack,et al.  The Frequency Following Response (FFR) May Reflect Pitch-Bearing Information But is Not a Direct Representation of Pitch , 2011, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[54]  Christopher J. Plack,et al.  Perceptual Consequences of “Hidden” Hearing Loss , 2014, Trends in hearing.

[55]  R. Salvi,et al.  Insensitivity of the audiogram to carboplatin induced inner hair cell loss in chinchillas , 2013, Hearing Research.

[56]  Lars Riecke,et al.  Endogenous Delta/Theta Sound-Brain Phase Entrainment Accelerates the Buildup of Auditory Streaming , 2015, Current Biology.

[57]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Cross-modal selective attention effects on retinal, myogenic, brainstem, and cerebral evoked potentials. , 1990, Psychophysiology.

[58]  G. Galbraith,et al.  Selective attention and brainstem frequency-following responses , 1993, Biological Psychology.

[59]  Sara K. Mamo,et al.  Frequency modulation detection as a measure of temporal processing: Age-related monaural and binaural effects , 2012, Hearing Research.

[60]  Virginia Best,et al.  Exploring the benefit of auditory spatial continuity. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[61]  Hari M. Bharadwaj,et al.  Report Why Middle-aged Listeners Have Trouble Hearing in Everyday Settings , 2022 .

[62]  N. Kraus,et al.  A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults , 2013, Hearing Research.

[63]  F. Varela,et al.  Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals , 1999, Human brain mapping.

[64]  Christopher J. Plack,et al.  Subcortical Plasticity Following Perceptual Learning in a Pitch Discrimination Task , 2011, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[65]  Hari M. Bharadwaj,et al.  Evidence against attentional state modulating scalp-recorded auditory brainstem steady-state responses , 2015, Brain Research.

[66]  Jayaganesh Swaminathan,et al.  Experience-dependent Enhancement of Linguistic Pitch Representation in the Brainstem Is Not Specific to a Speech Context , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[67]  Virginia Best,et al.  Object continuity enhances selective auditory attention , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[68]  Jochen Kaiser,et al.  Attentional Modulation of the Inner Ear: A Combined Otoacoustic Emission and EEG Study , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.