ArticleeNeuro2025
Neural Speech Tracking during Selective Attention: A Spatially Realistic Audiovisual Study.
Article in eNeuro, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bouncing back: Transient, but not long-lasting, effects of background disturbances on speech processing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paying attention to a target talker in multitalker scenarios is associated with its more accurate neural tracking relative to competing non-target speech. This "neural bias" to target speech has largely been demonstrated in experimental setups where target and non-target speech are acoustically controlled and interchangeable. However, in real-life situations this is rarely the case. For example, listeners often look at the talker they are paying attention to while non-target speech is heard (but not seen) from peripheral locations. To enhance the ecological-relevance of attention research, here we studied whether neural bias toward target speech is observed in a spatially realistic audiovisual context and how this is affected by switching the identity of the target talker. Group-level results show robust neural bias toward target speech, an effect that persisted and generalized after switching the identity of the target talker. In line with previous studies, this supports the utility of the speech-tracking approach for studying speech processing and attention in spatially realistic settings. However, a more nuanced picture emerges when inspecting data of individual participants. Although reliable neural speech tracking could be established in most participants, this was not correlated with neural bias or with behavioral performance, and >50% of participants showed similarly robust neural tracking of both target and non-target speech. These results indicate that neural bias toward the target is not a ubiquitous, or necessary, marker of selective attention (at least as measured from scalp-EEG), and suggest that individuals diverge in their internal prioritization among concurrent speech, perhaps reflecting different listening strategies or capabilities under realistic conditions.
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.