ArticleScientific reports2023
Target of selective auditory attention can be robustly followed with MEG.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual deficits in auditory selective attention in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: insights from multivariate pattern analysis of EEG.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Comparing MEG and EEG measurement set-ups for a brain-computer interface based on selective auditory attention.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selective auditory attention enables filtering of relevant acoustic information from irrelevant. Specific auditory responses, measurable by magneto- and electroencephalography (MEG/EEG), are known to be modulated by attention to the evoking stimuli. However, such attention effects have typically been studied in unnatural conditions (e.g. during dichotic listening of pure tones) and have been demonstrated mostly in averaged auditory evoked responses. To test how reliably we can detect the attention target from unaveraged brain responses, we recorded MEG data from 15 healthy subjects that were presented with two human speakers uttering continuously the words "Yes" and "No" in an interleaved manner. The subjects were asked to attend to one speaker. To investigate which temporal and spatial aspects of the responses carry the most information about the target of auditory attention, we performed spatially and temporally resolved classification of the unaveraged MEG responses using a support vector machine. Sensor-level decoding of the responses to attended vs. unattended words resulted in a mean accuracy of [Formula: see text] (N = 14) for both stimulus words. The discriminating information was mostly available 200-400 ms after the stimulus onset. Spatially-resolved source-level decoding indicated that the most informative sources were in the auditory cortices, in both the left and right hemisphere. Our result corroborates attention modulation of auditory evoked responses and shows that such modulations are detectable in unaveraged MEG responses at high accuracy, which could be exploited e.g. in an intuitive brain-computer interface.
Indexed as
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.