A comparison of two measures of subcortical responses to ongoing speech: Preliminary results

  • Florine Lena Bachmann Hearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6731-6032
  • Ewen MacDonald Hearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6973-2926
  • Jens Hjortkjær Hearing Systems Section, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark; Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, 2650 Hvidovre, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3724-3332
Keywords: complex auditory brainstem response, neural entrainment, ongoing speech, subcortical entrainment, auditory processing

Abstract

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.

References

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.

Published
2020-04-23
How to Cite
Bachmann, F., MacDonald, E., & Hjortkjær, J. (2020). A comparison of two measures of subcortical responses to ongoing speech: Preliminary results. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 7, 461-468. Retrieved from https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2019-54
Section
2019/5. Other topics in auditory and audiological research