Dataset Information

The Influence of Auditory Attention on Rhythmic Speech Tracking: Implications for Studies of Unresponsive Patients.

ABSTRACT: Language comprehension relies on integrating words into progressively more complex structures, like phrases and sentences. This hierarchical structure-building is reflected in rhythmic neural activity across multiple timescales in E/MEG in healthy, awake participants. However, recent studies have shown evidence for this "cortical tracking" of higher-level linguistic structures also in a proportion of unresponsive patients. What does this tell us about these patients' residual levels of cognition and consciousness? Must the listener direct their attention toward higher level speech structures to exhibit cortical tracking, and would selective attention across levels of the hierarchy influence the expression of these rhythms? We investigated these questions in an EEG study of 72 healthy human volunteers listening to streams of monosyllabic isochronous English words that were either unrelated (scrambled condition) or composed of four-word-sequences building meaningful sentences (sentential condition). Importantly, there were no physical cues between four-word-sentences. Rather, boundaries were marked by syntactic structure and thematic role assignment. Participants were divided into three attention groups: from passive listening (passive group) to attending to individual words (word group) or sentences (sentence group). The passive and word groups were initially naïve to the sentential stimulus structure, while the sentence group was not. We found significant tracking at word- and sentence rate across all three groups, with sentence tracking linked to left middle temporal gyrus and right superior temporal gyrus. Goal-directed attention to words did not enhance word-rate-tracking, suggesting that word tracking here reflects largely automatic mechanisms, as was shown for tracking at the syllable-rate before. Importantly, goal-directed attention to sentences relative to words significantly increased sentence-rate-tracking over left inferior frontal gyrus. This attentional modulation of rhythmic EEG activity at the sentential rate highlights the role of attention in integrating individual words into complex linguistic structures. Nevertheless, given the presence of high-level cortical tracking under conditions of lower attentional effort, our findings underline the suitability of the paradigm in its clinical application in patients after brain injury. The neural dissociation between passive tracking of sentences and directed attention to sentences provides a potential means to further characterise the cognitive state of each unresponsive patient.

SUBMITTER: Sokoliuk R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8385206 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesEfficient multisensory speech detection is critical for children who must quickly detect/encode a rapid stream of speech to participate in conversations and have access to the audiovisual cues that underpin speech and language development, yet multisensory speech detection remains understudied in children with hearing loss (CHL). This research assessed detection, along with vigilant/goal-directed attention, for multisensory versus unisensory speech in CHL versus children with normal hearing (CNH).DesignParticipants were 60 CHL who used hearing aids and communicated successfully aurally/orally and 60 age-matched CNH. Simple response times determined how quickly children could detect a preidentified easy-to-hear stimulus (70 dB SPL, utterance "buh" presented in auditory only [A], visual only [V], or audiovisual [AV] modes). The V mode formed two facial conditions: static versus dynamic face. Faster detection for multisensory (AV) than unisensory (A or V) input indicates multisensory facilitation. We assessed mean responses and faster versus slower responses (defined by first versus third quartiles of response-time distributions), which were respectively conceptualized as: faster responses (first quartile) reflect efficient detection with efficient vigilant/goal-directed attention and slower responses (third quartile) reflect less efficient detection associated with attentional lapses. Finally, we studied associations between these results and personal characteristics of CHL.ResultsUnisensory A versus V modes: Both groups showed better detection and attention for A than V input. The A input more readily captured children's attention and minimized attentional lapses, which supports A-bound processing even by CHL who were processing low fidelity A input. CNH and CHL did not differ in ability to detect A input at conversational speech level. Multisensory AV versus A modes: Both groups showed better detection and attention for AV than A input. The advantage for AV input was facial effect (both static and dynamic faces), a pattern suggesting that communication is a social interaction that is more than just words. Attention did not differ between groups; detection was faster in CHL than CNH for AV input, but not for A input. Associations between personal characteristics/degree of hearing loss of CHL and results: CHL with greatest deficits in detection of V input had poorest word recognition skills and CHL with greatest reduction of attentional lapses from AV input had poorest vocabulary skills. Both outcomes are consistent with the idea that CHL who are processing low fidelity A input depend disproportionately on V and AV input to learn to identify words and associate them with concepts. As CHL aged, attention to V input improved. Degree of HL did not influence results.ConclusionsUnderstanding speech-a daily challenge for CHL-is a complex task that demands efficient detection of and attention to AV speech cues. Our results support the clinical importance of multisensory approaches to understand and advance spoken communication by CHL.

Dataset Information

The Influence of Auditory Attention on Rhythmic Speech Tracking: Implications for Studies of Unresponsive Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets