ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Comparing methods for deriving the auditory brainstem response to continuous speech in human listeners.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. 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.
- The auditory brainstem response to natural speech is not affected by selective attention.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- The effect of speech masking on the human subcortical response to continuous speech.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several methods have recently been developed to derive the auditory brainstem response (ABR) from continuous natural speech, facilitating investigation into subcortical encoding of speech. These tools rely on deconvolution to compute the temporal response function (TRF), which models the subcortical auditory pathway as a linear system, where a nonlinearly processed stimulus is taken as the input (i.e., regressor), the electroencephalogram (EEG) data as the output, and the ABR as the impulse response deconvolved from the recorded EEG and the regressor. In this study, we analyzed EEG recordings from subjects listening to both unaltered natural speech and synthesized "peaky speech." We compared the derived ABR TRFs using three regressors: the half-wave rectified stimulus (HWR) fromMaddox and Lee (2018), the glottal pulse train (GP) fromPolonenko and Maddox (2021), and the auditory nerve modeled response (ANM;Zilany et al. (2014); (2009)) used inShan et al. (2024). Our evaluation focused on the signal-to-noise ratio, prediction accuracy, efficiency, and practicality of applying each regressor in both unaltered and peaky speech. The results indicate that the ANM regressor with peaky speech provides the best performance, with the ANM for unaltered speech and the GP regressor for peaky speech close behind, whereas the HWR regressor demonstrated relatively poorer performance. There are, thus, multiple stimulus and analysis tools that can provide high-quality subcortical TRFs, with the choices for which to use dictated by experimental needs. The findings in this study will guide future research and clinical use in selecting the most appropriate paradigm for ABR derivation from continuous, naturalistic speech.
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.