Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 14:15:685774.
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.685774. eCollection 2021.

EEG-Based Intersubject Correlations Reflect Selective Attention in a Competing Speaker Scenario

Affiliations

EEG-Based Intersubject Correlations Reflect Selective Attention in a Competing Speaker Scenario

Marc Rosenkranz et al. Front Neurosci. .

Abstract

Several solutions have been proposed to study the relationship between ongoing brain activity and natural sensory stimuli, such as running speech. Computing the intersubject correlation (ISC) has been proposed as one possible approach. Previous evidence suggests that ISCs between the participants' electroencephalogram (EEG) may be modulated by attention. The current study addressed this question in a competing-speaker paradigm, where participants (N = 41) had to attend to one of two concurrently presented speech streams. ISCs between participants' EEG were higher for participants attending to the same story compared to participants attending to different stories. Furthermore, we found that ISCs between individual and group data predicted whether an individual attended to the left or right speech stream. Interestingly, the magnitude of the shared neural response with others attending to the same story was related to the individual neural representation of the attended and ignored speech envelope. Overall, our findings indicate that ISC differences reflect the magnitude of selective attentional engagement to speech.

Keywords: EEG; attended speaker paradigm; correlated component analysis; intersubject correlation; naturalistic stimuli; selective auditory attention; speech envelope tracking.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Participants were instructed to attend to one of two simultaneously presented stories while EEG was recorded. Experimental conditions differed in allocation of attention to the story presented from the front left (yellow) or front right (purple). A 49-channel configuration was used for further analysis. (Intersubject correlation) Correlations between participants’ EEG signals were maximized using Correlated Component Analysis. The matrix on the right illustrates that correlations between participants that also attended to the left or right story are categorized as ISCsame whereas correlations across conditions are categorized as ISCother. As the correlation matrix is symmetrical one half can be neglected. (Speech envelope tracking) Speech envelope tracking was performed by segmenting the signals into 30 s epochs. For each epoch, the EEG signal of every channel was cross-correlated with the attended (red) and ignored (blue) speech envelope. The figure shows an example when the left stream is attended to, and the right stream ignored.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Cross-correlation functions of each channel averaged over epochs and participants. Topographies below show the channel weights, indicating channels that contributed most to the correlations at time lags from −50 to 300 ms in steps of 50 ms. (A) Cross-correlation functions of individual EEG channels with the attended speech envelope. The red line marks the global field power of the cross-correlation (GFPcrosscorr). (B) Cross-correlation functions of individual EEG channels with the ignored speech envelope. The blue line marks GFPcrosscorr of the ignored speech envelope.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
(A) Individual ISC scores between participants within the same attentional condition (red), and other attentional condition (blue). Participants from the freefield and headphone study are marked with solid gray and dashed black lines, respectively. The horizontal black lines represent 95th percentile of chance-level ISC scores for the same and other group correlation, respectively. (B) Mean and standard error of the mean (SEM) of intersubject correlations within a condition (same) and across conditions (other) for each component. 95th percentile of chance-level correlations is marked in gray. *** indicates significance at p < 0.001. (C) Forward model of the three most correlating components. The rows represent each component starting from the strongest in descending order. The first column contains data from all participants combined. The second and third column exclusively contain data from participants that attended to the left or right story, respectively. Channel weights which indicate channels that contribute most to the correlations between participants are indicated by color.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
(A) Grand average global field power (GFP) of cross-correlation between the EEG signal and the attended (red) and ignored (blue) speech envelope after averaging over all epochs and participants. Red and blue shaded areas show the confidence interval of the respective function. *** indicates a difference (p < 0.001) between the two functions in the time window of P2crosscorr, i.e., from 130 to 184 ms time lag. (Bottom) Correlation between ISC and selective attention effect on speech envelope tracking. Attentional modulation of the speech envelope tracking is defined as the difference between the attended and ignored GFPcrosscorr in the P2crosscorr time window. Each datapoint represents one participant. (B) Correlation with participant’s ISCsame score. (C) Correlation with participant’s ISCother score.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
(A) Prediction accuracies assessed by AUC indicate the performance of ISC to correctly classify whether or not a participant attended to the left story (ISCleft) or the right story (ISCright). Gray-shaded area indicates significance level at p < 0.001. (B) Each datapoint represents the relation of a participant’s ISCleft and ISCright score. The colors indicate the condition of the participant. The diagonal line illustrates how informative each datapoint was for the models.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aiken S. J., Picton T. W. (2008). Human cortical responses to the speech envelope. Ear Hear. 29 139–157. 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31816453dc - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blankertz B., Lemm S., Treder M., Haufe S., Müller K. R. (2011). Single-trial analysis and classification of ERP components–a tutorial. NeuroImage 56 814–825. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.048 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cherry E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25 975–979. 10.1121/1.1907229 - DOI
    1. Cohen S. S., Henin S., Parra L. C. (2017). Engaging narratives evoke similar neural activity and lead to similar time perception. Sci. Rep. 7:4578. 10.1038/s41598-017-04402-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cohen S. S., Madsen J., Touchan G., Robles D., Lima S. F. A., Henin S., et al. (2018). Neural engagement with online educational videos predicts learning performance for individual students. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 155 60–64. 10.1016/j.nlm.2018.06.011 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources