Comparing linear and quadratic models of the human auditory system using EEG

A Deep Learning Model for Correlation Analysis between Electroencephalography Signal and Speech Stimuli

In recent years, the use of electroencephalography (EEG) has grown as a tool for diagnostic and brain function monitoring, being a simple and non-invasive method compared with other procedures like histological sampling. Typically, in order to extract functional brain responses from EEG signals, prolonged and repeated stimuli are needed because of the artifacts generated in recordings which adversely impact the stimulus-response analysis. To mitigate the artifact effect, correlation analysis (CA) methods are applied in the literature, where the predominant approaches focus on enhancing stimulus-response correlations through the use of linear analysis methods like canonical correlation analysis (CCA). This paper introduces a novel CA framework based on a neural network with a loss function specifically designed to maximize correlation between EEG and speech stimuli. Compared with other deep learning CA approaches (DCCAs) in the literature, this framework introduces a single multilayer perceptron (MLP) network instead of two networks for each stimulus. To validate the proposed approach, a comparison with linear CCA (LCCA) and DCCA was performed, using a dataset containing the EEG traces of subjects listening to speech stimuli. The experimental results show that the proposed method improves the overall Pearson correlation by 10.56% compared with the state-of-the-art DCCA method.

Beyond linear neural envelope tracking: a mutual information approach

Objective.The human brain tracks the temporal envelope of speech, which contains essential cues for speech understanding. Linear models are the most common tool to study neural envelope tracking. However, information on how speech is processed can be lost since nonlinear relations are precluded. Analysis based on mutual information (MI), on the other hand, can detect both linear and nonlinear relations and is gradually becoming more popular in the field of neural envelope tracking. Yet, several different approaches to calculating MI are applied with no consensus on which approach to use. Furthermore, the added value of nonlinear techniques remains a subject of debate in the field. The present paper aims to resolve these open questions.Approach.We analyzed electroencephalography (EEG) data of participants listening to continuous speech and applied MI analyses and linear models.Main results.Comparing the different MI approaches, we conclude that results are most reliable and robust using the Gaussian copula approach, which first transforms the data to standard Gaussians. With this approach, the MI analysis is a valid technique for studying neural envelope tracking. Like linear models, it allows spatial and temporal interpretations of speech processing, peak latency analyses, and applications to multiple EEG channels combined. In a final analysis, we tested whether nonlinear components were present in the neural response to the envelope by first removing all linear components in the data. We robustly detected nonlinear components on the single-subject level using the MI analysis.Significance.We demonstrate that the human brain processes speech in a nonlinear way. Unlike linear models, the MI analysis detects such nonlinear relations, proving its added value to neural envelope tracking. In addition, the MI analysis retains spatial and temporal characteristics of speech processing, an advantage lost when using more complex (nonlinear) deep neural networks.

Fast-backward replay of sequentially memorized items in humans

Storing temporal sequences of events (i.e., sequence memory) is fundamental to many cognitive functions. However, it is unknown how the sequence order information is maintained and represented in working memory and its behavioral significance, particularly in human subjects. We recorded electroencephalography (EEG) in combination with a temporal response function (TRF) method to dissociate item-specific neuronal reactivations. We demonstrate that serially remembered items are successively reactivated during memory retention. The sequential replay displays two interesting properties compared to the actual sequence. First, the item-by-item reactivation is compressed within a 200 – 400 ms window, suggesting that external events are associated within a plasticity-relevant window to facilitate memory consolidation. Second, the replay is in a temporally reversed order and is strongly related to the recency effect in behavior. This fast-backward replay, previously revealed in rat hippocampus and demonstrated here in human cortical activities, might constitute a general neural mechanism for sequence memory and learning.

Have you ever played the ‘Memory Maze Challenge’ game, or its predecessor from the 1980s, ‘Simon’? Players must memorize a sequence of colored lights, and then reproduce the sequence by tapping the colors on a pad. The sequence becomes longer with each trial, making the task more and more difficult. One wrong response and the game is over.

Storing and retrieving sequences is key to many cognitive processes, from following speech to hitting a tennis ball to recalling what you did last week. Such tasks require memorizing the order in which items occur as well as the items themselves. But how do we hold this information in memory? Huang et al. reveal the answer by using scalp electrodes to record the brain activity of healthy volunteers as they memorize and then recall a sequence.

Memorizing, or encoding, each of the items in the sequence triggered a distinct pattern of brain activity. As the volunteers held the sequence in memory, their brains replayed these activity patterns one after the other. But this replay showed two non-intuitive features. First, it was speeded up relative to the original encoding. In fact, the brain compressed the entire sequence into about 200 to 400 milliseconds. Second, the brain replayed the sequence backwards. The activity pattern corresponding to the last item was replayed first, while that corresponding to the first item was replayed last. This ‘fast-backward’ replay may explain why we tend to recall items at the end of a list better than those in the middle, a phenomenon known as the recency effect.

The results of Huang et al. suggest that when we hold a list of items in memory, the brain does not replay the list in its original form, like an echo. Instead, the brain restructures and reorganizes the list, compressing and reversing it. This process, which is also seen in rodents, helps the brain to incorporate the list of items into existing neuronal networks for memory storage.

A Comparison of Regularization Methods in Forward and Backward Models for Auditory Attention Decoding

The decoding of selective auditory attention from noninvasive electroencephalogram (EEG) data is of interest in brain computer interface and auditory perception research. The current state-of-the-art approaches for decoding the attentional selection of listeners are based on linear mappings between features of sound streams and EEG responses (forward model), or vice versa (backward model). It has been shown that when the envelope of attended speech and EEG responses are used to derive such mapping functions, the model estimates can be used to discriminate between attended and unattended talkers. However, the predictive/reconstructive performance of the models is dependent on how the model parameters are estimated. There exist a number of model estimation methods that have been published, along with a variety of datasets. It is currently unclear if any of these methods perform better than others, as they have not yet been compared side by side on a single standardized dataset in a controlled fashion. Here, we present a comparative study of the ability of different estimation methods to classify attended speakers from multi-channel EEG data. The performance of the model estimation methods is evaluated using different performance metrics on a set of labeled EEG data from 18 subjects listening to mixtures of two speech streams. We find that when forward models predict the EEG from the attended audio, regularized models do not improve regression or classification accuracies. When backward models decode the attended speech from the EEG, regularization provides higher regression and classification accuracies.

The Multivariate Temporal Response Function (mTRF) Toolbox: A MATLAB Toolbox for Relating Neural Signals to Continuous Stimuli

Understanding how brains process sensory signals in natural environments is one of the key goals of twenty-first century neuroscience. While brain imaging and invasive electrophysiology will play key roles in this endeavor, there is also an important role to be played by noninvasive, macroscopic techniques with high temporal resolution such as electro- and magnetoencephalography. But challenges exist in determining how best to analyze such complex, time-varying neural responses to complex, time-varying and multivariate natural sensory stimuli. There has been a long history of applying system identification techniques to relate the firing activity of neurons to complex sensory stimuli and such techniques are now seeing increased application to EEG and MEG data. One particular example involves fitting a filter—often referred to as a temporal response function—that describes a mapping between some feature(s) of a sensory stimulus and the neural response. Here, we first briefly review the history of these system identification approaches and describe a specific technique for deriving temporal response functions known as regularized linear regression. We then introduce a new open-source toolbox for performing this analysis. We describe how it can be used to derive (multivariate) temporal response functions describing a mapping between stimulus and response in both directions. We also explain the importance of regularizing the analysis and how this regularization can be optimized for a particular dataset. We then outline specifically how the toolbox implements these analyses and provide several examples of the types of results that the toolbox can produce. Finally, we consider some of the limitations of the toolbox and opportunities for future development and application.