Literature DB >> 26187756

Evidence against attentional state modulating scalp-recorded auditory brainstem steady-state responses.

Leonard Varghese1, Hari M Bharadwaj2, Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham2.   

Abstract

Auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) and their steady-state counterpart (subcortical steady-state responses, SSSRs) are generally thought to be insensitive to cognitive demands. However, a handful of studies report that SSSRs are modulated depending on the subject׳s focus of attention, either towards or away from an auditory stimulus. Here, we explored whether attentional focus affects the envelope-following response (EFR), which is a particular kind of SSSR, and if so, whether the effects are specific to which sound elements in a sound mixture a subject is attending (selective auditory attentional modulation), specific to attended sensory input (inter-modal attentional modulation), or insensitive to attentional focus. We compared the strength of EFR-stimulus phase locking in human listeners under various tasks: listening to a monaural stimulus, selectively attending to a particular ear during dichotic stimulus presentation, and attending to visual stimuli while ignoring dichotic auditory inputs. We observed no systematic changes in the EFR across experimental manipulations, even though cortical EEG revealed attention-related modulations of alpha activity during the task. We conclude that attentional effects, if any, on human subcortical representation of sounds cannot be observed robustly using EFRs. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled SI: Prediction and Attention.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attention; Auditory processing; Envelope-following response; FFR; Frequency-following response

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26187756      PMCID: PMC5645016          DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.06.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Res        ISSN: 0006-8993            Impact factor:   3.252


  88 in total

1.  Relationship between N1 evoked potential morphology and the perception of voicing.

Authors:  A Sharma; C M Marsh; M F Dorman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Corticofugal modulation of time-domain processing of biosonar information in bats.

Authors:  J Yan; N Suga
Journal:  Science       Date:  1996-08-23       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Human auditory evoked potentials. II. Effects of attention.

Authors:  T W Picton; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1974-02

4.  Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain.

Authors:  S A Hillyard; R F Hink; V L Schwent; T W Picton
Journal:  Science       Date:  1973-10-12       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Role of visual attention on auditory evoked potentials in unanesthetized cats.

Authors:  L C Oatman
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  1971-09       Impact factor: 5.330

6.  Auditory steady-state responses to multiple simultaneous stimuli.

Authors:  O G Lins; T W Picton
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1995-09

7.  Selective attention and brainstem frequency-following responses.

Authors:  G C Galbraith; C Arroyo
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 3.251

8.  Selective attention affects human brain stem frequency-following response.

Authors:  Gary C Galbraith; Darlene M Olfman; Todd M Huffman
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2003-04-15       Impact factor: 1.837

9.  The Role of Alpha-Band Brain Oscillations as a Sensory Suppression Mechanism during Selective Attention.

Authors:  John J Foxe; Adam C Snyder
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-07-05

10.  Quantifying attentional modulation of auditory-evoked cortical responses from single-trial electroencephalography.

Authors:  Inyong Choi; Siddharth Rajaram; Lenny A Varghese; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  22 in total

1.  Processing Complex Sounds Passing through the Rostral Brainstem: The New Early Filter Model.

Authors:  John E Marsh; Tom A Campbell
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 4.677

2.  Effect of informational content of noise on speech representation in the aging midbrain and cortex.

Authors:  Alessandro Presacco; Jonathan Z Simon; Samira Anderson
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Afferent-efferent connectivity between auditory brainstem and cortex accounts for poorer speech-in-noise comprehension in older adults.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Caitlin N Price; Dawei Shen; Stephen R Arnott; Claude Alain
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 4.  Cortical and Sensory Causes of Individual Differences in Selective Attention Ability Among Listeners With Normal Hearing Thresholds.

Authors:  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.297

5.  Non-Invasive Assays of Cochlear Synaptopathy - Candidates and Considerations.

Authors:  Hari M Bharadwaj; Alexandra R Mai; Jennifer M Simpson; Inyong Choi; Michael G Heinz; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 3.590

6.  No effects of attention or visual perceptual load on cochlear function, as measured with stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Jordan A Beim; Andrew J Oxenham; Magdalena Wojtczak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Biometric identification of listener identity from frequency following responses to speech.

Authors:  Fernando Llanos; Zilong Xie; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 5.379

8.  Examining replicability of an otoacoustic measure of cochlear function during selective attention.

Authors:  Jordan A Beim; Andrew J Oxenham; Magdalena Wojtczak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Assessing Cochlear-Place Specific Temporal Coding Using Multi-Band Complex Tones to Measure Envelope-Following Responses.

Authors:  Le Wang; Hari Bharadwaj; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.590

10.  Effect of Noise Reduction on Cortical Speech-in-Noise Processing and Its Variance due to Individual Noise Tolerance.

Authors:  Subong Kim; Yu-Hsiang Wu; Hari M Bharadwaj; Inyong Choi
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.