Category: Attention

Categories
Adaptive Control Ageing Attention Auditory Cortex Auditory Neuroscience Auditory Speech Processing Executive Functions fMRI Papers Psychology Uncategorized

New paper in PNAS by Alavash, Tune, Obleser

How brain areas com­mu­ni­cate shapes human com­mu­ni­ca­tion: The hear­ing regions in your brain form new alliances as you try to lis­ten at the cock­tail party

Oble­ser­lab Post­docs Mohsen Alavash and Sarah Tune rock out an intri­cate graph-the­o­ret­i­cal account of mod­u­lar recon­fig­u­ra­tions in chal­leng­ing lis­ten­ing sit­u­a­tions, and how these pre­dict indi­vid­u­als’ lis­ten­ing success.

Avail­able online now in PNAS! (Also, our uni is cur­rent­ly fea­tur­ing a Ger­man-lan­guage press release on it, as well as an Eng­lish-lan­guage ver­sion)

Categories
Attention Auditory Cortex Auditory Neuroscience EEG / MEG Papers Perception Psychology Publications

New paper in Neu­roim­age by Fiedler et al.: Track­ing ignored speech matters

Lis­ten­ing requires selec­tive neur­al pro­cess­ing of the incom­ing sound mix­ture, which in humans is borne out by a sur­pris­ing­ly clean rep­re­sen­ta­tion of attend­ed-only speech in audi­to­ry cor­tex. How this neur­al selec­tiv­i­ty is achieved even at neg­a­tive sig­nal-to-noise ratios (SNR) remains unclear. We show that, under such con­di­tions, a late cor­ti­cal rep­re­sen­ta­tion (i.e., neur­al track­ing) of the ignored acoustic sig­nal is key to suc­cess­ful sep­a­ra­tion of attend­ed and dis­tract­ing talk­ers (i.e., neur­al selec­tiv­i­ty). We record­ed and mod­eled the elec­troen­cephalo­graph­ic response of 18 par­tic­i­pants who attend­ed to one of two simul­ta­ne­ous­ly pre­sent­ed sto­ries, while the SNR between the two talk­ers var­ied dynam­i­cal­ly between +6 and −6 dB. The neur­al track­ing showed an increas­ing ear­ly-to-late atten­tion-biased selec­tiv­i­ty. Impor­tant­ly, acousti­cal­ly dom­i­nant (i.e., loud­er) ignored talk­ers were tracked neu­ral­ly by late involve­ment of fron­to-pari­etal regions, which con­tributed to enhanced neur­al selec­tiv­i­ty. This neur­al selec­tiv­i­ty, by way of rep­re­sent­ing the ignored talk­er, pos­es a mech­a­nis­tic neur­al account of atten­tion under real-life acoustic conditions.

The paper is avail­able here.

Categories
Attention Auditory Cortex Brain stimulation Papers Perception Publications

New paper in press in JASA: Kre­it­e­wolf et al. on the role of voice-fea­ture con­ti­nu­ity for cock­tail-par­ty listening

Oble­ser­lab post­doc Jens Kre­it­e­wolf is in press in The Jour­nal of the Acousti­cal Soci­ety of America!

Togeth­er with our col­leagues, Marc Schön­wies­ner (Montreal/Leipzig), Samuel Math­ias (Yale), and Régis Tra­peau (Montreal/Marseille), we inves­ti­gat­ed the roles of two of the most salient voice fea­tures, glot­tal-pulse rate (GPR) and vocal-tract length (VTL), for per­cep­tu­al group­ing in the cock­tail par­ty. Using care­ful­ly con­trolled stim­uli, we show that lis­ten­ers exploit con­ti­nu­ity in both voice fea­tures to solve the cock­tail-par­ty prob­lem, but that VTL con­ti­nu­ity plays a stronger role for per­cep­tu­al group­ing than GPR con­ti­nu­ity. Our find­ings are in line with the dif­fer­en­tial impor­tance of VTL and GPR for the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of nat­ur­al talk­ers and have clin­i­cal­ly rel­e­vant impli­ca­tions for cock­tail-par­ty lis­ten­ing in cochlear-implant users.

Data were record­ed using the Dome at BRAMS dur­ing Jens’ ACN Eras­mus Mundus exchange in Montreal.

The paper is avail­able as preprint:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/30/379545

 

Categories
Attention Auditory Cortex Auditory Perception Brain stimulation Papers Psychology Publications Speech

New paper in press in Brain Stim­u­la­tion: Wöst­mann, Vosskuhl, Obleser, and Her­rmann demon­strate that exter­nal­ly ampli­fied oscil­la­tions affect audi­to­ry spa­tial attention

In a fine col­lab­o­ra­tion we com­bine exper­tise on audi­to­ry cog­ni­tion (Malte Wöst­mann & Jonas Obleser, Uni­ver­si­ty of Lübeck) and brain stim­u­la­tion (Johannes Vosskuhl and Christoph S Her­rmann, Uni­ver­si­ty of Old­en­burg) to show that exter­nal­ly stim­u­lat­ed alpha and gam­ma oscil­la­tions dif­fer­en­tial­ly affect spa­tial atten­tion to speech. Our par­tic­i­pants per­formed a dichot­ic lis­ten­ing task while being stim­u­lat­ed using tran­scra­nial alter­nat­ing cur­rent stim­u­la­tion (tACS) at alpha or gam­ma fre­quen­cy (vs sham) on the left hemi­sphere. Alpha-tACS rel­a­tive­ly decreased recall of tar­gets con­tralat­er­al to stim­u­la­tion, while gam­ma-tACS reversed this effect. These results sug­gest that exter­nal­ly ampli­fied oscil­la­tions are func­tion­al­ly rel­e­vant to spa­tial attention.

Wöst­mann, M., Vosskuhl, J., Obleser, J., & Her­rmann, C.S. (2018). Oppo­site effects of lat­er­alised tran­scra­nial alpha ver­sus gam­ma stim­u­la­tion on audi­to­ry spa­tial attention.

Now avail­able online:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1935861X18301074

Abstract:

Back­ground: Spa­tial atten­tion rel­a­tive­ly increas­es the pow­er of neur­al 10-Hz alpha oscil­la­tions in the hemi­sphere ipsi­lat­er­al to atten­tion, and decreas­es alpha pow­er in the con­tralat­er­al hemi­sphere. For gam­ma oscil­la­tions (>40 Hz), the oppo­site effect has been observed. The func­tion­al roles of lat­er­alised oscil­la­tions for atten­tion are cur­rent­ly unclear.

Hypoth­e­sis: If lat­er­alised oscil­la­tions are func­tion­al­ly rel­e­vant for atten­tion, tran­scra­nial stim­u­la­tion of alpha ver­sus gam­ma oscil­la­tions in one hemi­sphere should dif­fer­en­tial­ly mod­u­late the accu­ra­cy of spa­tial atten­tion to the ipsi-ver­sus con­tralat­er­al side.

Meth­ods: 20 human par­tic­i­pants per­formed a dichot­ic lis­ten­ing task under con­tin­u­ous tran­scra­nial alter­nat­ing cur­rent stim­u­la­tion (tACS, vs sham) at alpha (10 Hz) or gam­ma (47 Hz) fre­quen­cy. On each tri­al, par­tic­i­pants attend­ed to four spo­ken num­bers on the left or right ear, while ignor­ing num­bers on the oth­er ear. In order to stim­u­late a left tem­poro-pari­etal cor­tex region, which is known to show marked mod­u­la­tions of alpha pow­er dur­ing audi­to­ry spa­tial atten­tion, tACS (1 mA peak-to-peak ampli­tude) was applied at elec­trode posi­tions TP7 and FC5 over the left hemisphere.

Results: As pre­dict­ed, uni­hemi­spher­ic alpha-tACS rel­a­tive­ly decreased the recall of tar­gets con­tralat­er­al to stim­u­la­tion, but increased recall of ipsi­lat­er­al tar­gets. Impor­tant­ly, this spa­tial pat­tern of results was reversed for gamma-tACS.

Con­clu­sions: Results pro­vide a proof of con­cept that tran­scra­nial­ly stim­u­lat­ed oscil­la­tions can enhance spa­tial atten­tion and facil­i­tate atten­tion­al selec­tion of speech. Fur­ther­more, oppo­site effects of alpha ver­sus gam­ma stim­u­la­tion sup­port the view that states of high alpha are incom­men­su­rate with active neur­al pro­cess­ing as reflect­ed by states of high gamma.

Categories
Adaptive Control Attention Auditory Working Memory Clinical relevance Executive Functions fMRI Papers Psychology Publications Uncategorized

New paper in press in ‘Neu­roim­age’: Alavash, Lim, et al

Oble­ser­lab post­doc Mohsen Alavash and Oble­ser­lab Alum­na Sung-Joo Lim are in press at Neu­roim­age!

They argue with data from a place­bo-con­trolled dopamin­er­gic inter­ven­tion study that BOLD sig­nal vari­abil­i­ty and the func­tion­al con­nec­tome are sur­pris­ing­ly clear­ly affect­ed by L‑Dopa, and (ii) that the degree of change in these met­rics can explain the degree to which indi­vid­u­als will prof­it from L‑DOPA in per­form­ing the chal­leng­ing lis­ten­ing task (while oth­ers dont; Preprint here ).

Alavash, M., Lim, S.J., Thiel, C., Sehm, B., Deser­no, L., & Obleser, J. (2018) Dopamin­er­gic mod­u­la­tion of hemo­dy­nam­ic sig­nal vari­abil­i­ty and the func­tion­al con­nec­tome dur­ing cog­ni­tive per­for­mance. Neu­roim­age. In press.

— Thanks also and in par­tic­u­lar to our col­leagues Chris­tiane Thiel of Old­en­burg, and Bern­hard Sehm and Lorenz Deser­no of Leipzig, who helped us made this large-scale L‑DOPA project happen!

 

 

Categories
Ageing Attention Auditory Cortex Auditory Neuroscience Editorial Notes EEG / MEG Executive Functions Neural Phase Posters

Come see us @ Neu­ro­science 2017 in DC

Will be at the Soci­ety for Neu­ro­science Meet­ing next week in DC? Come find us in the Wednes­day after­noon ses­sion with a bunch of (we think) very cool atten­tion-relat­ed posters (Poster boards UU42–UU46):

804.06. Audi­to­ry atten­tion and pre­dic­tive pro­cess­ing co-mod­u­late speech com­pre­hen­sion in mid­dle-aged adults
*S. TUNE, M. WÖSTMANN, J. OBLESER;

804.05. Implic­it tem­po­ral pre­dictabil­i­ty enhances audi­to­ry pitch-dis­crim­i­na­tion sensitivity
*S. K. HERBST, M. PLÖCHL, A. HERRMANN, J. OBLESER;

804.09. Are visu­al and audi­to­ry detec­tion per­for­mance dri­ven by a supramodal atten­tion­al rhythm?
*M. PLOECHL, S. KASTNER, I. C. FIEBELKORN, J. OBLESER;

804.08. Spa­tio-tem­po­ral expec­ta­tions exert dif­fer­en­tial effects on visu­al and audi­to­ry discrimination
*A. WILSCH, J. OBLESER, C. E. SCHROEDER, C. S. HERRMANN, S. HAEGENS

804.07. Tran­scra­nial 10-Hz stim­u­la­tion but also eye clo­sure mod­u­late audi­to­ry attention
*M. WÖSTMANN, L.-M. SCHMITT, J. VOSSKUHL, C. S. HERRMANN, J. OBLESER

Categories
Attention Auditory Neuroscience EEG / MEG Evoked Activity Neural Oscillations Neural Phase Papers Perception Psychology Uncategorized

New paper in Plos Biol­o­gy: Com­ment by Obleser, Hen­ry, & Lakatos

My col­leagues and col­lab­o­ra­tor Peter Lakatos and Mol­ly Hen­ry and I took to our desks and Mat­lab con­soles, when Assaf Bres­ka and Leon Deouell came out ear­li­er this year with their paper in Plos Biology.

We had a few things to say about what we then per­ceived as a rather pes­simistic assess­ment of neur­al entrain­ment. How­ev­er, since then a great and quite fru­ti­ful dis­cus­sion has emerged, now pub­lished in Plos Biology:

Obleser J, Hen­ry, MJ, & Lakatos, P. What do we talk about when we talk about rhythm?, Plos Biol­o­gy 2017

Mean­while, Bres­ka and Deouell added some more behav­iour­al data and replied to us (now also pub­lished).

— Enjoy!

 

Categories
Attention Auditory Cortex Auditory Neuroscience Auditory Speech Processing EEG / MEG Papers Psychology Publications

New paper in press in Jour­nal of Neur­al Engi­neer­ing: Fiedler et al. on in-ear-EEG and the focus of audi­to­ry attention

Towards a brain-con­trolled hear­ing aid: PhD stu­dent Lorenz Fiedler shows how attend­ed and ignored audi­to­ry streams are dif­fer­ent­ly rep­re­sent­ed in the neur­al respons­es and how the focus of audi­to­ry atten­tion can be extract­ed from EEG sig­nals record­ed at elec­trodes placed inside the ear-canal and around the ear.

Abstract
Objec­tive. Con­ven­tion­al, mul­ti-chan­nel scalp elec­troen­cephalog­ra­phy (EEG) allows the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the attend­ed speak­er in con­cur­rent-lis­ten­ing (‘cock­tail par­ty’) sce­nar­ios. This implies that EEG might pro­vide valu­able infor­ma­tion to com­ple­ment hear­ing aids with some form of EEG and to install a lev­el of neu­ro-feed­back. Approach. To inves­ti­gate whether a listener’s atten­tion­al focus can be detect­ed from sin­gle-chan­nel hear­ing-aid-com­pat­i­ble EEG con­fig­u­ra­tions, we record­ed EEG from three elec­trodes inside the ear canal (‘in-Ear-EEG’) and addi­tion­al­ly from 64 elec­trodes on the scalp. In two dif­fer­ent, con­cur­rent lis­ten­ing tasks, par­tic­i­pants ( n  =  7) were fit­ted with indi­vid­u­al­ized in-Ear-EEG pieces and were either asked to attend to one of two dichot­i­cal­ly-pre­sent­ed, con­cur­rent tone streams or to one of two diot­i­cal­ly-pre­sent­ed, con­cur­rent audio­books. A for­ward encod­ing mod­el was trained to pre­dict the EEG response at sin­gle EEG chan­nels. Main results. Each indi­vid­ual par­tic­i­pants’ atten­tion­al focus could be detect­ed from sin­gle-chan­nel EEG response record­ed from short-dis­tance con­fig­u­ra­tions con­sist­ing only of a sin­gle in-Ear-EEG elec­trode and an adja­cent scalp-EEG elec­trode. The dif­fer­ences in neur­al respons­es to attend­ed and ignored stim­uli were con­sis­tent in mor­phol­o­gy (i.e. polar­i­ty and laten­cy of com­po­nents) across sub­jects. Sig­nif­i­cance. In sum, our find­ings show that the EEG response from a sin­gle-chan­nel, hear­ing-aid-com­pat­i­ble con­fig­u­ra­tion pro­vides valu­able infor­ma­tion to iden­ti­fy a listener’s focus of attention.