ArticleTrends in hearing
Linking Attentional Modulation to Auditory Attention Decoding: Using Colocated Stimuli With a Fixed Temporal Structure.
Article in Trends in hearing. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neural representations of task-relevant sounds are emphasized when they are attended to, compared with when they are ignored. Classic markers of this modulation, such as amplitude change of event-related potentials (ERPs) and attentional modulation indices (AMIs) derived from envelope-tracking analyses, provide robust quantitative measures of top-down attentional strength. However, it remains unclear how well modern auditory attention decoding (AAD) algorithms applied to short electroencephalography (EEG) segments reflect these established neural signatures.Here, we used a two-stream, colocated listening paradigm with fixed and highly regular temporal structure, enabling precise isolation of ERPs and reliable computation of AMI. Participants attended to one of two simultaneous speech streams and detected occasional pitch deviants, while a 64-channel EEG was recorded. We compared three decoding pipelines-a forward linear model-based decoder, a backward linear model-based decoder, and a convolutional neural network (CNN) decoder-in their ability to classify the attended stream from single 4-s trials, a window short enough to reveal performance differences while still supporting above-chance decoding. Importantly, we examined how decoding outcomes relate to classical attentional modulation, including ERP peak amplitudes and AMI.All models achieved significant AAD performance, with the CNN decoder yielding the highest accuracy. Decoding success of all models aligned with known attentional modulation of ERPs, while the forward model decoder exhibited stronger alignment to the N1 peak-related AMI. These findings demonstrate how fixed temporal structure and colocation provide a testbed linking attention decoding to underlying neural mechanisms.
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.