A comparison of two measures of subcortical responses to ongoing speech: Preliminary results
Neural responses in the auditory brainstem and midbrain are traditionally obtained with repetitions of basic stimuli such as clicks and tones. However, two different methods to measure subcortical responses to ongoing speech with non-invasive electroencephalography (EEG) have recently been published: one based on regularised linear regression (Maddox and Lee, 2018), and the other based on cross-correlation (Etard et al., 2009; Forte et al., 2017). Here, we compare these two methods using the same EEG data set. For both measures, we found prominent peaks in the response functions at latencies consistent with wave V of the auditory brainstem response (ABR; mean latency: 8.19 and 5.97 ms, respectively). The peak response latencies in individual participants were correlated between the regression approach and conventional click-evoked auditory brainstem responses (click- ABRs), suggesting a common underlying neural source. However, similar correlations were not found between the two speech-based methods, nor between the correlation approach and click-ABRs. This could arise from either differences in the methodologies or from variability in the measures.
Akram, S., A. de Cheveigne ́, P. U. Diehl, E. Graber, C. Graversen, J. Hjortkjaer, N. Mesgarani, L. Parra, U. Pomper, S. Shamma, J. Simon, M. Slaney, and D. Wong (2017). Telluride Decoding Toolbox. https://github.com/neuromorphs-2017-decoding/telluride-decoding-toolbox.
Ding, N. and J. Z. Simon (2012a). “Emergence of neural encoding of auditory objects while listening to competing speakers,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 109 (29), 11854–11859, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205381109.
Ding, N. and J. Z. Simon (2012b). “Neural coding of continuous speech in auditory cortex during monaural and dichotic listening,” J. Neurophysiol., 107 (1), 78–89, doi: 10.1152/jn.00297.2011.
Etard, O., M. Kegler, C. Braiman, A. E. Forte, and T. Reichenbach (2009). “Decoding of selective attention to continuous speech from the human auditory brainstem response,” NeuroImage, 200, 1–11, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.06.029.
Forte, A. E., O. Etard, and T. Reichenbach (2017). “The human auditory brainstem re- sponse to running speech reveals a subcortical mechanism for selective attention,” eLife, 6, e27203, doi: 10.7554/elife.27203.001.
Fuglsang, S. A., T. Dau, and J. Hjortkjær (2017). “Noise-robust cortical tracking of attended speech in real-world acoustic scenes,” NeuroImage, 156, 435–444, doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.026.
Garrett, M. and S. Verhulst (2019). “Applicability of subcortical EEG metrics of synaptopathy to older listeners with impaired audiograms,” Hear. Res., 380, 150–165, doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2019.07.001.
Hjortkjær, J., J. Ma ̈rcher-Rørsted, S. A. Fuglsang, and T. Dau (2018). “Cortical oscillations and entrainment in speech processing during working memory load,” Eur. J. of Neurosci., 1–11, doi: 10.1111/ejn.13855.
Kegler, M. (2019). Fundamental waveforms extraction. https://github.com/MKegler/fundamental waveforms extraction.
Lalor, E. C., A. J. Power, R. B. Reilly, and J. J. Foxe (2009). “Resolving precise temporal processing properties of the auditory system using continuous stimuli,” J. Neurophysiol., 102 (1), 349–359, doi: 10.1152/jn.90896.2008.
Maddox, R. K. and A. K. Lee (2018). “Auditory brainstem responses to continuous natural speech in human listeners,” eNeuro, 5 (1). doi: 10.1523/eneuro.0441- 17.2018.
Oostenveld, R., P. Fries, E. Maris, and J.-M. Schoffelen (2011). “FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysio- logical data,” Comput. Intell. and Neurosci., 2011, 1, doi: 10.1155/2011/156869.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright* and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
*From the 2017 issue onward. The Danavox Jubilee Foundation owns the copyright of all articles published in the 1969-2015 issues. However, authors are still allowed to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.