ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
Incorporating models of subcortical processing improves the ability to predict EEG responses to natural speech.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of describing how the human brain responds to complex acoustic stimuli has driven auditory neuroscience research for decades. Often, a systems-based approach has been taken, in which neurophysiological responses are modeled based on features of the presented stimulus. This includes a wealth of work modeling electroencephalogram (EEG) responses to complex acoustic stimuli such as speech. Examples of the acoustic features used in such modeling include the amplitude envelope and spectrogram of speech. These models implicitly assume a direct mapping from stimulus representation to cortical activity. However, in reality, the representation of sound is transformed as it passes through early stages of the auditory pathway, such that inputs to the cortex are fundamentally different from the raw audio signal that was presented. Thus, it could be valuable to account for the transformations taking place in lower-order auditory areas, such as the auditory nerve, cochlear nucleus, and inferior colliculus (IC) when predicting cortical responses to complex sounds. Specifically, because IC responses are more similar to cortical inputs than acoustic features derived directly from the audio signal, we hypothesized that linear mappings (temporal response functions; TRFs) fit to the outputs of an IC model would better predict EEG responses to speech stimuli. To this end, we modeled responses to the acoustic stimuli as they passed through the auditory nerve, cochlear nucleus, and inferior colliculus before fitting a TRF to the output of the modeled IC responses. Results showed that using model-IC responses in traditional systems analyses resulted in better predictions of EEG activity than using the envelope or spectrogram of a speech stimulus. Further, it was revealed that model-IC derived TRFs predict different aspects of the EEG than acoustic-feature TRFs, and combining both types of TRF models provides a more accurate prediction of the EEG response.x.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.