Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42453026›Full record

ArticleTrends in hearing

Linking Attentional Modulation to Auditory Attention Decoding: Using Colocated Stimuli With a Fixed Temporal Structure.

Jusung Ham, Ian Pope, Jinhee Kim, Hwan Shim, Bijaya Adhikari, Yu-Hsiang Wu, Kyogu Lee, Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham, Octav Chipara, Inyong Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jusung HamDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2257-9784
Ian PopeDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Jinhee KimDepartment of Intelligence and Information, College of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6548-370X
Hwan ShimDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4077-5551
Bijaya AdhikariDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8409-8073
Yu-Hsiang WuDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Kyogu LeeDepartment of Intelligence and Information, College of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Barbara G Shinn-CunninghamNeuroscience Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Octav ChiparaDepartment of Computer Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Inyong ChoiDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6663-9152

Funding

Speech Production &LanguageP50DC000242 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Inyong Choi · 1989 to 2026
$58.8M
HUMAN AUDITORY CORTEX PHYSIOLOGYR01DC004290 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI HOWARD, MATTHEW A. · 2000 to 2025
$13.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS P50 DC000242NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC004290
6 · The paper itself

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

Acoustic StimulationAttentionAuditory PerceptionElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, AuditorySpeech PerceptionAdultConvolutional Neural NetworksFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedTime FactorsYoung Adultauditory attention decodingauditory selective attentionconvolutional neural networkelectroencephalographyexplainabilitylinear modeling

Identifiers

PMID42453026
PMCPMC13373405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.