
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158
PONE-D-23-42460
Research Article
Social Sciences
Linguistics
Speech
Biology and Life Sciences
Anatomy
Head
Ears
Medicine and Health Sciences
Anatomy
Head
Ears
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Behavior
Social Sciences
Psychology
Behavior
Engineering and Technology
Signal Processing
Speech Signal Processing
Biology and Life Sciences
Anatomy
Brain
Cerebral Hemispheres
Right Hemisphere
Medicine and Health Sciences
Anatomy
Brain
Cerebral Hemispheres
Right Hemisphere
Biology and Life Sciences
Anatomy
Brain
Prefrontal Cortex
Medicine and Health Sciences
Anatomy
Brain
Prefrontal Cortex
Biology and Life Sciences
Anatomy
Brain
Cerebral Hemispheres
Left Hemisphere
Medicine and Health Sciences
Anatomy
Brain
Cerebral Hemispheres
Left Hemisphere
Research and Analysis Methods
Imaging Techniques
Neuroimaging
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Neuroimaging
Cortical mechanisms of across-ear speech integration investigated using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)
Cortical mechanisms of across-ear speech integration
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6501-1566
Sobczak Gabriel G. Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Funding acquisition Investigation Methodology Project administration Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 ¤a *
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5285-947X
Zhou Xin Conceptualization Data curation Formal analysis Methodology Resources Software Supervision Writing – review & editing 1 ¤b
Moore Liberty E. Investigation Methodology Software Validation Writing – review & editing 1
Bolt Daniel M. Formal analysis Writing – review & editing 2
Litovsky Ruth Y. Conceptualization Methodology Project administration Resources Supervision Writing – review & editing 1 3 4
1 Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, United States of America
2 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, United States of America
3 Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, United States of America
4 Department of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, United States of America
Naseer Noman Editor
Air University, PAKISTAN
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

¤a Current address: Department of Otolaryngology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, United States of America

¤b Current address: Brain and Mind Institute, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

* E-mail: gsobczak@iu.edu
18 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030715823 12 2023
2 7 2024
© 2024 Sobczak et al
2024
Sobczak et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

This study aimed to investigate integration of alternating speech, a stimulus which classically produces a V-shaped speech intelligibility function with minimum at 2–6 Hz in typical-hearing (TH) listeners. We further studied how degraded speech impacts intelligibility across alternating rates (2, 4, 8, and 32 Hz) using vocoded speech, either in the right ear or bilaterally, to simulate single-sided deafness with a cochlear implant (SSD-CI) and bilateral CIs (BiCI), respectively. To assess potential cortical signatures of across-ear integration, we recorded activity in the bilateral auditory cortices (AC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (DLPFC) during the task using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). For speech intelligibility, the V-shaped function was reproduced only in the BiCI condition; TH (with ceiling scores) and SSD-CI conditions had significantly higher scores across all alternating rates compared to the BiCI condition. For fNIRS, the AC and DLPFC exhibited significantly different activity across alternating rates in the TH condition, with altered activity patterns in both regions in the SSD-CI and BiCI conditions. Our results suggest that degraded speech inputs in one or both ears impact across-ear integration and that different listening strategies were employed for speech integration manifested as differences in cortical activity across conditions.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000055 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders R01 DC003083 Litovsky Ruth Y. http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100002595 American Otological Society Fellowship Grant 2020 - 21 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6501-1566
Sobczak Gabriel G. http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000071 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development P50 HD105353 Funding for this study was derived from several sources, including National Institutes of Health – National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIH-NIDCD) grant No. R01 DC003083 to Ruth Litovsky, the American Otological Society Fellowship Grant to Gabriel G. Sobczak, and in part by a core grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50 HD105353 to Waisman Center). The listed funders did NOT play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data AvailabilityStimuli, unprocessed fNIRS data, and speech intelligibility data from this study are publicly available through the Open Science Framework. URL: https://osf.io/xdmwy/?view_only=2d17c98b9ae34ee9864b359c07bf0332
Data Availability

Stimuli, unprocessed fNIRS data, and speech intelligibility data from this study are publicly available through the Open Science Framework. URL: https://osf.io/xdmwy/?view_only=2d17c98b9ae34ee9864b359c07bf0332
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The current study investigated across-ear integration for speech with both perceptual measures and application of functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to assess whether neural signatures of the across-ear integration are found at the cortical level. These phenomena were investigated under listening conditions that simulated cochlear implant (CI) processing in one or both ears (peripheral degradation of speech information), compared to non-degraded listening conditions. The study was motivated by growing evidence that people with hearing loss who are fitted with prosthetic devices show deficits in being able to integrate information across the two ears. Of particular interest are CIs which are known to restore some functional hearing in listeners with profound hearing loss.

Impaired across-ear integration in CI listeners

Listeners with bilateral CIs (BiCI), or with single-sided deafness (SSD) and CI in the deaf ear, hereafter referred to as SSD-CI, perform poorly compared to typical-hearing (TH) listeners when listening to speech in noisy environments. Successful speech perception in these scenarios depends on the binaural system, which facilitates separation of target speech from interfering sounds [1–4]. Impaired cortical-level integration due to poor peripheral speech encoding may be associated with these deficits, illustrated with reaction-time experiments in listeners with hearing loss [5]. Further, impaired auditory attention may compound the audibility issues associated with perceptual degradation in SSD-CI listeners [6]. An essential goal towards improving current aural rehabilitation strategies in listeners with profound hearing loss is identifying a neural signature indicative of across-ear integration in listeners with non-degraded and degraded signals in one or both ears.

Alternating speech paradigm

In the present study, across-ear integration was examined using an alternating speech paradigm in which sequential segments of spoken sentences were alternated between ears at varying rates. This paradigm can produce a V-shaped speech intelligibility function whereby performance is best at low and high alternating rates, but poorer at middle rates [7]. These variations in performance across rates are likely manifestations of several perceptual phenomena that are involved in the process of integrating information from both ears. If sounds are presented to the two ears at the same time or at rapidly alternated between ears (>16 Hz), listeners can fuse information from the two ears to form a coherent auditory object [8–11]. When sounds are alternated slowly between ears (< 4 Hz), listeners might be able to switch attention between the ears to ultimately piece together content of running speech [7,12,13]. At intermediate rates, it may be the case that neither strategy is successful and speech understanding consequently declines.

Wesarg and colleagues used the alternating speech paradigm to examine binaural hearing in a study with SSD-CI listeners [14]. A V-shaped speech intelligibility function with minimum between 4 and 8 Hz was produced with monotic interrupted CI stimulus and with bilateral alternating stimulus, consistent with prior studies using alternating speech in TH listeners [7,12,13,15,16]. Binaural benefit (the difference between bilateral performance and monotic performance in the hearing ear) decreased monotonically from lower to higher alternating rates. The observed inverse relationship between binaural benefit and alternating rate across different listening configurations may indicate a decreasing reliance on both ears, and likely a reduction in attentional engagement to reconstruct speech as the alternating rate increases. In the present study, we combined behavioral and neuroimaging data (see below) in attempt to unravel the potential connection between utilization of different listening strategies across alternating rates and auditory attentional input associated with each listening strategy.

Cortical regions of interest (ROIs)

Investigating the processing of alternating speech hinges both on the V-shaped speech intelligibility function and on auditory attention. Auditory cortex (AC) activity correlates strongly with intelligible speech in fMRI studies [17,18]. Using fNIRS, Lawrence and colleagues similarly found that increased activity in the bilateral superior temporal regions correlated with higher intelligibility scores in TH listeners [19], and Olds found that activation in the superior temporal gyrus correlated with higher sentence accuracy scores in TH and CI listeners with good performance [20]. Together, these studies suggest that fNIRS measures of auditory cortical activity can provide a neural marker of speech intelligibility; therefore AC was chosen as our first a priori region of interest (ROI) when examining the processing of alternating speech.

The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is a component of the frontoparietal attention network involved in directing attention [21,22]. The DLPFC plays a role in attentional processing of sounds [23,24]. McLaughlin and colleagues found that left DLPFC activity, as recorded by combined electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG), was related to acoustic feature task switches and further correlated with task performance [25]. These findings align with the recruitment of frontoparietal networks observed in visual or visual-spatial task switching [26,27], and suggest that the DLPFC is likely involved in both auditory/visual attention as well as attentional switching tasks. Therefore, DLPFC was chosen as another a priori ROI in the current study.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to assess cortical activity in response to an alternating speech stimulus. However, it is important to note that fNIRS itself is not necessarily a novel functional neuroimaging modality and has been validated against fMRI data in multiple studies [28–31]. The decision to implement fNIRS, rather than other modalities such as fMRI or EEG, was largely based on the compatibility of fNIRS with the components of a CI, as listeners with CI are likely to be future participants in similar studies.

Hypotheses and predictions

The present study investigated how spectral degradation affects across-ear integration of alternating speech. In one condition, non-degraded, typical hearing (TH) alternating speech was presented to both ears. SSD-CI and BiCI conditions were simulated in TH listeners by presenting vocoded speech in the right ear or both ears, respectively. We predicted that, if across-ear integration of speech differs across alternating rates in accordance with posited listening strategies, and addition of degraded input impairs across-ear integration, then speech intelligibility functions would vary across conditions, dependent both on alternating rates and on listening conditions. Specifically, speech intelligibility scores were predicted to be at ceiling across all rates in the TH condition, and to show canonical V-shaped function in the BiCI condition, with SSD-CI condition showing outcomes intermediated between the TH and BiCI conditions.

For fNIRS measures, differences in speech intelligibility scores were hypothesized to be associated with changes in cortical activity in the AC, with decreased AC activity under less intelligible listening conditions compared to more intelligible conditions. In conditions that showed V-shaped speech intelligibility across rates, particularly in the BiCI condition, we also predicted V-shaped trends in fNIRS responses in the AC. Higher DLPFC activity, reflective of auditory attention, would be observed in conditions that require greater attentional resources to reconstruct the speech content. Further, greater fNIRS responses in the DLPFC were predicted at lower alternating rates compared to higher rates, due to the posited switching of attention between ears at lower rates to reconstruct speech, and under conditions with degraded speech and alternating speech, i.e., BiCI and SSD-CI, compared to the TH condition.

Methods

Ethics statement

The protocol for this experimental study (protocol ID 2016-0226-CP022) was reviewed and approved by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Minimal Risk Institutional Review Board. Participants provided written, informed consent prior to the first data collection session.

Participants

Twenty-four adult volunteers were recruited through a University of Wisconsin (UW) ‐ Madison online job posting site between October 1st, 2020 and March 1st, 2021. One participant missed their scheduled sessions and did not return for testing. Two were excluded prior to data collection on account of poor data quality during calibration of the fNIRS system. Twenty-one participants advanced to the testing phase, and all who completed the study were paid for their time or received course credits. Data from one participant who completed the study were corrupted while uploading to a secure data storage server and the participant did not return to repeat the study. The final group of twenty participants (18 females and 2 males; age [mean ± standard deviation (SD)]: 20.3 ± 1.3 years, range: 18–23 years; 18 right-handed) were native monolingual English speakers with normal or corrected-to-normal vision, no known neurological disorders, and no significant musical experience. Pure tone thresholds were equal to or less than 20 dB HL with less than 10 dB difference between ears at octave frequencies between 250 and 8000 Hz. Experimental protocols followed National Institutes of Health standards and were approved by the UW ‐ Madison’s Human Subjects Institutional Review board.

Stimuli

Speech stimuli consisted of sentences from the AuSTIN corpus [32], recorded by an American female speaker from our lab. These sentences contained three or four target words. An example sentence, with target words in bold, is “The room is very messy;” 640 unique sentences were selected for fNIRS testing, and a separate group of 120 sentences were selected for speech intelligibility testing. The distribution of sentences with three and four target words was kept constant across the two groupings. Both non-degraded and vocoded versions of the sentences were used. Vocoded sentences were produced with an 8-channel noise vocoder [33], consisting of a white-noise carrier and channels divided into eight frequency bands between 200 and 7000 Hz with filters based on Greenwood functions. Sentences were then modified in MatLab® (build R2020a) to alternate between ears at rates of 2, 4, 8, and 32 Hz; when speech was present in one ear, there was silence in the other (see Fig 1). Rates were selected to capture the V-shaped speech intelligibility function while minimizing the number of conditions required. For each of the alternating rates, three different speech conditions were used: non-degraded speech (TH), bilaterally vocoded speech (BiCI), and left ear non-degraded/right ear vocoded (SSD-CI). The audible periods of each sentence were normalized to the same overall root-mean-square (RMS) level.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.g001 Fig 1 Alternating speech stimulus, speech conditions, and fNIRS data collection.

(a) Spectrogram demonstrating an example non-degraded AuSTIN sentence, “The room is very messy,” segmented and alternating between ears at 8 Hz. (b) Organization of speech conditions: NH = non-degraded speech in both ears; SSD-CI = vocoded speech in right ear, non-degraded speech in left ear; BiCI = vocoded speech bilaterally. (c) Pseudorandom block design, with stimuli in 4 listening conditions (boxes); 4 alternating rates presented at one speech condition in random order during each data collection session.

Stimulus blocks for fNIRS sessions in each speech condition per alternating rate were generated by concatenating five sentences from the condition with an inter-stimulus interval of 500 milliseconds. After the sentence concatenation step, zero padding was implemented to each block both at the beginning and at the end to ensure a duration of 17 seconds. Twenty practice session blocks and 108 testing blocks were created. For the testing blocks, there were nine blocks for each of the twelve conditions (3 speech conditions x 4 alternating rates). All stimuli were delivered through ER-2A insert earphones (Etymotic® Research) and calibrated to be presented at 60 dBA (Fmax, maximum level with A-weighted frequency response and fast time constant). For the SSD-CI speech condition, unprocessed speech in the left ear was attenuated by 3 dB to balance the subjective loudness of the unprocessed and vocoded speech [34–36].

Assessment of speech intelligibility

The group of 20 participants were tested without fNIRS data collection to evaluate the effect of alternating rate and speech condition on speech intelligibility. Behavioral speech intelligibility testing was conducted without fNIRS recording because verbal responses to stimuli were required and would have likely introduced artefactual signals in the fNIRS data, primarily related to the movement of temporalis muscle during articulation. Since these artifacts would be tasked-evoked, they would have been challenging to exclude from the signals of interest [31,37–39]. Speech intelligibility testing occurred on days with four fNIRS testing sessions, following fNIRS data collection. Speech was presented through the insert earphones, and the experiment was run on a custom MatLab® script. Participants were instructed to listen to a single alternating AuSTIN sentence and repeat back as many words as they understood into a microphone. The experimenter then entered the number of correctly identified target words into the program. Sentences were played in groups of five at one speech condition (TH, BiCI, or SSD-CI) and one of four possible alternating rates. All four alternating rates were utilized before a new speech condition was played. The order of speech conditions and alternating rates was randomized across participants, and a total of 120 sentences were played (two groups of 5 sentences for each of the 12 conditions).

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) data collection

fNIRS is a non-invasive optical imaging modality ideally suited for auditory neuroscience experiments, given its temporal and spatial resolution, and compatibility with ferromagnetic and electrical components of hearing rehabilitation devices [20,40]. The present study utilized a continuous-wave near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) system with 16 light-emitting diode (LED) sources and 16 avalanche photodiode (APD) detectors (NIRScoutTM; NIRX Medical Technologies, LLC). Each LED source emitted NIR light at 760 and 850 nm wavelengths. These wavelengths were used to evaluate the oxygenation state of hemoglobin (Hb), either oxygenated (HbO) or deoxygenated (HbR), in the brain tissue. APD detectors measured changes in the intensity of incident light, which were then converted to changes in HbO and HbR concentration using a modified Beer-Lambert equation. Neuronal activation is associated with increased regional cerebral blood flow, and consequently increased HbO and decreased HbR, a phenomenon known as neurovascular coupling [31,37]. The fNIRS response functions for HbO and HbR correlate well with the blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) response in fMRI [41].

Each LED source with all adjacent APD detectors located at 30 mm distance constituted the measurement channels. In addition, eight detectors were placed 8 mm from their associated LED sources, creating “short channels” which recorded primarily extracerebral tissue responses [31,42]. The short-channel components were used to regress out the systemic noise in the regular channels and have been shown to significantly improve fNIRS signal-to-noise ratio [42]. Additional details about these short channels can be found in S1 File. The placement of light sources and detectors on the 10–10 system are detailed S1 Table. A NIRScap (NIRX Medical Technologies, LLC) fitted to participant’s head circumference was used to arrange sources and detectors in the desired montage on their head (Fig 2A). fNIRS responses were examined in the DLPFC (Fig 2B) and AC (Fig 2C) on both hemispheres. Aggregate sensitivity profiles for each region were generated in the AtlasViewer program [43] with a generic “Colin27” brain anatomy atlas to ensure that our probe design yielded the highest probabilistic sensitivity to neuronal activity in the bilateral DLPFC and AC. The DLPFC was represented with Brodmann areas 45, 46, and 9; the AC was represented with Brodmann areas 41 and 42 [43].

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.g002 Fig 2 Illustration of fNIRS montage and cortical regions of interest.

(a) fNIRS montage, showing sources (red dots), detectors (blue dots) and short-channel detectors (green asterisks). Dotted yellow lines connecting a source and detector represent measurement channels, while solid yellow lines represent measurement channels overlying cortical regions of interest (ROIs). fNIRS montage was symmetric between the left and right hemisphere. (b) Selected channels comprising a priori ROIs, the auditory cortex (AC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC); ROIs are only shown on the left hemisphere for demonstration purposes. Colormap corresponds to sensitivity profiles generated in AtlasViewer (43) for each ROI channel grouping, in units of log10 mm-1.

All data were collected in a standard Industrial Acoustics Company sound-attenuated booth. A pseudo-random block design was implemented for fNIRS data collection and run in Presentation® [44]. Each participant underwent a total of nine 10-minute testing periods across two visits, with four or five testing periods per visit. The number of testing periods for visit 1 versus visit 2 was counterbalanced across participants. Each testing period began with a 30-second silent period for baseline data collection, followed by a stimulus block from one of the 12 conditions. A single testing period (Fig 1) contained twelve blocks from one speech condition (TH, BiCI, or SSD-CI) at randomized alternating rates (2, 4, 8, or 32 Hz) such that each alternating rate was repeated three times. The order of the nine testing periods was randomized across participants. In between each 17-second block, there was a silent period between 25–35 seconds in duration.

To ensure engagement during testing, participants were asked to attend to the 5 sentences in each block. Immediately after each block, a sentence was displayed on a monitor 1.5 m in front of the participant. Participants were asked to respond promptly as to whether the displayed sentence was played in the block or not, using a computer mouse button. In between blocks, participants were asked to focus on a white fixation cross displayed on the monitor. At the end of every 10-minute testing period, the participant’s accuracy in identifying sentences was shown on the monitor as feedback. An abbreviated practice session was conducted prior to fNIRS testing to familiarize participants with the stimuli blocks and behavioral task at the beginning of each visit. There were 10 blocks per practice session, each block randomly selected from one of the 12 conditions with varying silent periods between blocks. Participants were asked to perform the same task as in the testing sessions. Verbal instructions were given by the experimenter, and text instructions were displayed on the monitor prior to testing. Accuracy on the sentence identification task was analyzed for button-push responses (true hits) in each speech condition across nine fNIRS recording sessions for each participant.

fNIRS data analyses

fNIRS data were imported into MatLab® (build R2020a) for pre-processing and further analysis, using custom scripts written by the authors or scripts adapted from the Homer2 package [45]. The preprocessing pipeline consisted of: {1} rejecting channels of poorer quality (see S1 File and S2 Table for additional details), {2} converting light intensity to optical density, {3} reducing motion artifacts using a wavelet analysis method, {4} calculating the concentration changes in the hemoglobin, {5} filtering the low and high frequency noise with a bandpass (0.01–1.5 Hz) filter, {6} reducing the noise from the extracerebral tissue using a general linear model (GLM) and principal component analysis (PCA) combined method (for details see [42] and [39]), and {7} applying another bandpass filter (0.01–0.09 Hz) to further remove respirations and heartbeat noise, then calculating the block-averaged responses for each ROI. A detailed description of wavelet analysis, GLM model, and block-average analysis is available in S1 File.

Statistical analyses

The purposes of statistical analyses in the present study were as follows: {1} to examine the effects of alternating rate (2, 4, 8, and 32 Hz) and spectral degradation (by comparing SSD-CI and BiCI with TH) on speech intelligibility scores; {2} to examine the effects of alternating rate and spectral degradation on fNIRS responses, along with differences in responses between cortical regions of interest (AC, DLPFC) and brain hemispheres (left, right); {3} to elucidate potential relationships between fNIRS responses and speech intelligibility data. All analyses were performed in R (R Core Team, version 4.0.4, 2021).

For speech intelligibility, the percent-correct scores initially recorded for each participant were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) to stabilize the variances of these scores [46,47]. The RAU scores were then tested for normality by running a Shapiro-Wilk test on the residuals from a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with factors “alternating rate” and “speech condition”. Because the residuals were not normally distributed (W = 0.895, p = 6.88*10−12), an aligned rank transform (ART) analysis [48], which is a nonparametric analysis parallel to ANOVA, was conducted on the RAU scores. ART (“ARTool” R package) with a mixed model ("lmer” package) was performed on the RAU scores with alternating rate and speech condition as fixed factors and participant as a random factor. Post-hoc analyses within single factors were conducted using linear modeling (“lme4” package) and estimated marginal means (“emmeans” package) with Tukey method for p-value adjustment. When interactions between alternating rate and speech condition were tested post-hoc, the Holm method was used for p-value adjustment.

For the fNIRS measurements, ΔHbO and ΔHbR data were separately analyzed to assess the hemodynamic response in each ROI on the two hemispheres [49]. Normality of the ΔHbO and ΔHbR data were tested by running a Shapiro-Wilk test on the residuals of a four-way ANOVA with factors “alternating rate”, “speech condition”, “ROI”, and “hemisphere”. Neither the ΔHbO nor ΔHbR residuals were normally distributed (WHbO = 0.993, pHbO = 1.23*10−4; WHbR = 0.993, pHbR = 1.38*10−4). Hence, ART with mixed models were then separately performed on the transformed ΔHbO and ΔHbR data with alternating rate, speech condition, hemisphere, and ROI as fixed factors and participants as a random factor. Post-hoc analyses within single factors were conducted using linear modeling and estimated marginal means with Tukey method for p-value adjustment. No interaction analyses were performed as the omnibus ANOVA did not reveal any statistically significant factor interactions. Significant differences were found between both hemisphere and ROI factors, so post-hoc subgroup analyses were conducted on the four hemisphere-ROI combinations (left and right AC and DLPFC) to further examine the effects of alternating rate and speech condition on fNIRS responses. Because a priori hypotheses regarding subgroups were not generated, this analysis was exploratory in nature, in attempt to examine why no significant interactions were noted in the omnibus ANOVA. For the subgroup analysis, p values were corrected for multiple comparisons using a false discovery rate method [50].

Results

Analysis of experimental data is separated into behavioral speech intelligibility scores and functional neuroimaging data as recorded with fNIRS. For speech intelligibility, the canonical V-shaped intelligibility function was reproduced only in the BiCI condition. This finding suggests a potential effect of bilateral spectral degradation on intelligibility of alternating speech. Alternatively, there may be a unique contribution of the selected speech material, but that is an unlikely explanation for the canonical V-shaped function in the BiCI condition. TH and SSD-CI conditions had significantly higher scores and were not significantly different from one another across all alternating rates, and higher than the V-shaped reduction in scores in the BiCI condition. Sentence identification accuracy during the fNIRS experiment generally mirrored results from the behavioral experiment.

For fNIRS, the AC and DLPFC exhibited significantly different activity across alternating rates in the TH condition, with higher amplitude of ΔHbO in the DLPFC compared to the AC. Cortical activity was significantly impacted by the alternating rate of the speech stimulus, driven by increased ΔHbO amplitudes at 4 Hz compared with 8 Hz. However, the effect of alternating rate was not specific to any one ROI in subgroup analyses. Although activity patterns in both the DLPFC and AC were graphically altered in the SSD-CI and BiCI conditions compared to the TH condition, there was no significant main effect of speech condition on ΔHbO amplitude. Of note, in the left hemisphere, both the AC and DLPFC exhibited a V-shaped pattern of ΔHbO amplitudes, albeit with a minimum amplitude at 8 Hz instead of 4 Hz. ΔHbO and ΔHbR amplitudes were generally anticorrelated, which is expected for hemodynamic responses of neural origin. Further discussion of ΔHbR can be found in S1 File.

Behavioral results–speech intelligibility experiment

Plotted in Fig 3 are participant-level RAU scores at each alternating rate and within-participant intelligibility functions. Group means and standard deviations across the three speech conditions are superimposed on each of the subplots. Speech intelligibility scores were generally lowest in the BiCI (bilaterally vocoded) condition and highest in the TH (bilaterally non-vocoded) condition, with SSD-CI (left non-vocoded, right vocoded) scores falling in between, in line with our predictions. The V-shaped speech intelligibility function was replicated in the BiCI condition but not in the SSD-CI condition, in contrast with our predictions.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.g003 Fig 3 Participant-level speech intelligibility data in rationalized arcsine units (RAU), at all four alternating rates.

Figure panels are separated by speech condition. Connecting lines between each participant’s datapoints are added to illustrate participant-level patterns across alternating rates. Group-mean speech intelligibility ± 1 standard deviation (SD) is superimposed on participant-level data. Speech intelligibility data were collected in a separate behavioral experiment without fNIRS recording.

Statistical analyses revealed a significant main effect of speech condition and alternating rate, and a significant interaction between speech condition and alternating rate (see the summary in Table 1). Post-hoc analyses revealed significant differences between BiCI and TH, and between BiCI and SSD-CI (p < 0.001). When comparing across alternating rates within one speech condition, the following contrasts were significantly different in the BiCI condition: 2–4 Hz, 2–8 Hz, 4–32 Hz, and 8–32 Hz (p < 0.001 for all). All contrasts were non-significant for the SSD-CI and TH speech conditions, indicating that there was not a significant change in speech intelligibility across alternating rates for these conditions, and suggesting “ceiling” performance in these two conditions. Interaction analyses are summarized in Table 1 and indicate that the effect of alternating rate was specific to the BiCI speech condition, since the V-shaped speech intelligibility function was only produced in this condition. Specifically, non-significant p values were obtained between BiCI–TH and BiCI–SSD-CI at 2–32 Hz and 4–8 Hz, while remaining BiCI–TH and BiCI–SSD-CI contrasts were significant, indicate a V-shaped intelligibility function in the BiCI condition. The non-significant BiCI–SSD-CI at 8–32 Hz contrast illustrates that the average change in speech intelligibility scores between 8–32 Hz for both degraded speech conditions was similar (Fig 3). This finding neither refutes the V-shaped intelligibility function in the BiCI condition nor supports the presence of a V-shaped function in the SSD-CI condition. Fifteen participants demonstrated a minimum at 4 Hz in the BiCI condition, while five participants (Subj2, Subj4, Subj5, Subj11, Subj 15) exhibited an 8 Hz minimum.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.t001 Table 1 Summary of statistical results for speech intelligibility data.

Mixed model analysis	Post-hoc	
Speech Cond	F(2,209) = 328.42, p < 0.001	BiCI < TH; p < 0.001
BiCI < SSD-CI; p < 0.001	
Alternating Rate	F(3,209) = 23.49, p < 0.001	‐‐	
Speech Cond:
Alternating Rate	F(6,209) = 14.17, p < 0.001	‐‐	
Contrasts between speech conditions and alternating rates	
Contrasts	BiCI–TH (p)	BiCI–SSD-CI (p)	TH–SSD-CI (p)	
2–4 Hz	< 0.001	< 0.001	1.00	
2–8 Hz	< 0.001	< 0.001	1.00	
2–32 Hz	1.00	0.20	0.21	
4–8 Hz	0.26	0.81	1.00	
4–32 Hz	< 0.001	0.002	0.21	
8–32 Hz	< 0.001	0.17	0.73	
Bolded values indicate significance level of p < 0.01, after correction for multiple comparisons using Holm method.

Sentence identification accuracy during fNIRS recording

From the fNIRS sentence identification task, mean ± SD accuracy for each speech condition was as follows: TH– 95 ± 6%; SSD-CI– 94 ± 11%; BiCI– 89 ± 10%, indicating generally high accuracy on the task. There was a significant main effect of speech condition (F(2,158) = 13.7, p < 0.001), with significantly lower accuracy in the BiCI than in the TH and SSD-CI conditions (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively).

fNIRS responses–DLPFC and AC

ΔHbO and ΔHbR data were analyzed in the a priori ROIs, i.e., the DLPFC and AC on both hemispheres. Fig 4 plots the group-mean block-averaged ΔHbO responses at each alternating rate, separated by speech condition, in these ROIs. Plots with standard error of the mean for AC and DLPFC traces are included in S1 and S2 Figs, respectively. Responses in the DLPFC generally had higher amplitudes than those in the AC. The right AC tended to have more consistent patterns of activation (positive amplitudes), whereas there appeared to be deactivation (negative amplitudes) in the left AC at 8 Hz in the SSD-CI (left non-degraded, right degraded) and BiCI (bilaterally degraded) conditions. Fig 5 plots the group means (bar graph) and standard error of the mean (error bars) of ΔHbO and ΔHbR responses in the same layout as Fig 4. In the left hemisphere, the AC and DLPFC responses in the TH (bilaterally non-degraded) condition exhibited opposite patterns, whereas in the SSD-CI and BiCI conditions, both the AC and DLPFC exhibited minimum amplitude at 8 Hz. In the right hemisphere, at 4 Hz, the DLPFC showed maximal activity in all speech conditions, whereas AC showed maximal activity in the BiCI condition only.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.g004 Fig 4 Group-averaged ΔHbO waveforms in cortical regions of interest (ROIs).

Each plot contains waveforms at all four alternating rates. Columns correspond to the three speech conditions, and data from a single cortical ROI is contained in each black box. Within each plot, vertical dotted lines correspond to stimulus onset and offset.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.g005 Fig 5 Group-averaged ΔHbO and ΔHbR amplitude data, in the cortical regions of interest (ROIs).

Amplitudes are plotted across alternating rates, and error bars correspond to ± 1 standard error of the mean (SEM). Connecting lines between amplitude bars (solid = ΔHbO, dotted = ΔHbR) demonstrate overall patterns in amplitude changes across alternating rates. Columns contain data from one speech condition, and black boxes contain data from one cortical ROI.

Table 2 summarizes the statistical results for ΔHbO. Statistical results for ΔHbR are summarized in S3 Table. There were significant main effects of alternating rate (p = 0.03), ROI (p < 0.001), and hemisphere (p = 0.01), with a non-significant effect of speech condition (p = 0.09). There were no significant interactions between any of the fixed factors. Post hoc analyses revealed that DLPFC response amplitudes were higher than AC amplitudes, and that right hemisphere amplitudes were higher than in the left hemisphere. The main effect of alternating rate was driven by significantly higher response amplitudes at 4 Hz than at 8 Hz (p = 0.04), and marginally lower amplitudes at 8 Hz than at 32 Hz (p = 0.07). Given the negative ΔHbO at 8 Hz in the LAC for SSD-CI and BiCI conditions (see Fig 5), it is possible that this effect was moderated both by increased ΔHbO at 4 Hz and decreased (more negative) ΔHbO at 8 Hz. However, our statistical analysis was not adequately powered to assess this level of detail. These findings may indicate changes in cortical activity due to implementation of new listening strategies as the alternating rate changed.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.t002 Table 2 Summary of statistical results for ΔHbO amplitudes.

Mixed model analysis	post-hoc	
Speech Cond	F(2,893) = 2.37, p = 0.09		
Alternating Rate	F(3,893) = 2.97, p = 0.03	4 Hz > 8 Hz; p = 0.04
8 Hz < 32 Hz; p = 0.07	
ROI	F(1,893) = 43.52, p < 0.001	DLPFC > AC, p < 0.001	
Hemisphere	F(1,893) = 6.86, p = 0.01	Right > Left, p = 0.01	
post-hoc subgroup analysis	
Brain Region	Left AC	Right AC	Left DLPFC	Right DLPFC	
Factor	p	p	p	p	
Speech Cond	0.10	0.83	0.19	0.12	
Alternating Rate	0.32	0.54	0.09	0.83	
Speech Cond: Alternating Rate	0.16	0.62	0.96	1.00	

Subgroup analyses were employed to evaluate the effects of alternating rate and speech condition in each of the four ROIs. This analysis was exploratory in nature. Results from this analysis are tabulated in Table 2. The main effect of speech condition with ΔHbO data in the left AC was non-significant (F(2,893) = 2.30, p = 0.10), and the main effect of alternating rate with ΔHbO data in the left and right DLPFC similarly non-significant (F(3,893) = 2.20, p = 0.09; F(3,893) = 2.24, p = 0.08, respectively). As the estimated effects are of moderate magnitude, the lack of statistical significance is likely impacted by the smaller sample size in the subgroup analyses.

For the above exploratory subgroup analyses, the authors note that differences in the statistical significance of effects observed across subgroups does not imply presence of an interaction; no claims are made about differential subgroup effects with this analysis.

Discussion

In this study we measured perception of speech that alternated between the two ears at different rates, and fNIRS measures of cortical activation patterns in response to the same stimulus. Of interest was a comparison across conditions between bilaterally non-vocoded (TH) and vocoded speech in the right ear only (simulated SSD-CI) and bilaterally vocoded (simulated BiCI). A V-shaped intelligibility function was reproduced in the BiCI speech condition, with a significant decrement in intelligibility at all rates compared to the TH and SSD-CI conditions, but no significant difference across alternating rates between the latter two conditions. fNIRS measures revealed a significant effect of the 4–8 Hz alternating rate contrast on ΔHbO in all four regions, with higher HbO amplitudes in the DLPFC compared to the AC, and in the right hemisphere compared to the left.

Patterns in behavioral speech intelligibility data and sentence identification

Our study found similar behavioral results to previous work with alternating speech, as published by Wesarg (14) indicating replicability of data–the study utilized the German OlKiSa corpus (Oldenburg Sentence Test for Children) which contains sentences similar in structure to those of AuSTIN. Of note, fewer alternating rates were used in the current study compared to these prior experiments, focusing on the end point and middle points, aiming to reduce experiment duration and burden on participants. Speech intelligibility scores were lowest (worst) in the BiCI condition among the three conditions. This was an expected finding, in keeping with psychoacoustic research which demonstrates that increasingly degraded speech (in the present study, bilateral vocoded speech) correlates with progressively reduced intelligibility [e.g. [51–54]]. Additionally, in the BiCI condition, a V-shaped intelligibility function was obtained, suggesting different strategies were implemented across alternating rates. Work from [55,56] may explain the observed point of minimum speech intelligibility with alternating speech stimuli. Both groups studied the effects of sinusoidally modulating the interaural phase difference of interfering noise presented with diotic speech. Speech intelligibility decreased with modulation frequencies above 4–5 Hz, suggesting that the noise became fused as a single percept and interfered with target speech at this critical modulation rate. Therefore, the 4 Hz speech alternation rate potentially represents a boundary where listeners no longer selectively attending to each ear and where binaural fusion occurs for stimuli that alternate across the two ears.

The finding of ceiling-level scores in speech intelligibility in the TH (non-vocoded) and SSD-CI (left non-vocoded and right vocoded) conditions were in contrast with results in previous studies, but unsurprising. We propose that whether data appear to assume a “V” shape function is influenced by the duration of speech material, a proxy for cognitive load [57–59]. Previous studies examining intelligibility to alternating speech utilized a shadowing paradigm [7,13,15,16,47], whereby listeners repeated back in real time a spoken passage of 100–125 words alternating between ears. These studies obtained a point of minimum intelligibility at 4–6 Hz using non-degraded speech in TH listeners. In contrast, when speech materials were short and the tasks were simpler, the V-shaped function was not found. Wesarg [14] utilized the German Oldenburg Sentence Test for Children [60], in which sentences are pre-set to a 5-word length, similar to the AuSTIN corpus in the current study. In line with our results, the intelligibility function for real SSD-CI listeners in that study had a shallow U-shape: there were no significant differences in speech intelligibility across intermediate alternating rates of 2.6, 4, and 8 Hz.

To that end, we propose that both the presence of degraded speech input and the duration of speech material may influence the shape of the intelligibility function. However, a connection between “cognitive load” and speech intelligibility may not be so straightforward [61]. Arguing against our proposal, Stewart and colleagues performed an experiment where shadowed passages were paused for participants’ responses after clauses and sentence boundaries, resulting in an average segment size of 8.5 words [16]. With this modification, participants performed better compared to when shadowing the passages, but the V-shaped intelligibility function was still maintained across alternating rates. More research using within-participant comparisons across different sentence corpuses is required to address this hypothesis.

We considered potential effects of exposure to AuSTIN sentence structure on the speech intelligibility scores. Note that the behavioral speech intelligibility experiment was run after several fNIRS testing sessions, or interval between two visits, and the same AuSTIN sentence structure was used in both speech intelligibility and fNIRS testing sessions [62,63]. However, our results, detailed in S1 File, found that there was no learning effect of Day 1 vs. Day 2 testing on speech performance (p = 0.55), or test-retest interval on Day 2 performance (p = 0.66). If participants had become more familiar with stimuli over multiple sessions, it was not sufficient to allow them to predict speech content, or they did not attempt to predict speech content despite familiarity with the stimuli.

Alternating speech and markers of speech intelligibility in the AC

Responses in the auditory cortex (AC) were predicted to mirror speech intelligibility scores measured separately in the behavioral speech perception session, based on prior neuroimaging studies that found direct correlations between AC activity and speech intelligibility [17–20] and fNIRS data collected in our lab [64]. However, this pattern was not observed in the TH (non-vocoded) speech condition. The left AC showed an inverse V-shaped trend in ΔHbO amplitude arose across alternating rates in the SSD-CI (left non-vocoded and right vocoded) and BiCI (bilaterally vocoded) conditions, whereas the right AC generally showed a monotonic decrease in activity as alternating rate increased. When vocoded speech was present in the SSD-CI and BiCI conditions, cortical activation patterns in the AC changed when compared to the TH condition. In the left AC, there was a marked V-shaped pattern in ΔHbO amplitude that emerged in both the SSD-CI and BiCI condition, contrasting the inverse V-shaped trend in the TH condition. The left AC encodes intelligibility of speech–especially sentences [65–68], whereas the right AC encodes features of speech such as the envelope [69,70]. These findings may account for why the left AC responses in SSD-CI and BiCI conditions closely mirrored the shape of speech intelligibility functions across alternating rates in our experiment.

The presence of the 8 Hz minimum in both SSD-CI and BiCI speech conditions in the left AC may indicate a neural marker of intelligibility for degraded, dichotic speech stimuli. Behaviorally, there was a graphical minimum for intelligibility at 4 Hz in the BiCI condition, but there were no significant differences in RAU scores between 4 Hz and 8 Hz. However, five participants exhibited 8 Hz minima speech intelligibility in the BiCI condition and may have driven the average fNIRS response towards a minimum at 8 Hz rather than 4 Hz. The fact that this negative ΔHbO amplitude is isolated to the left AC is potentially related to left hemispheric dominance of temporal processing of amplitude-modulated speech [71–73], as our alternating stimulus was sequentially modulated by zeros and ones. This left dominance is typically limited to short temporal windows (< 100 ms), and perhaps is most salient for correspondingly higher alternating rates. The authors propose that the shape of the fNIRS responses in the left AC should be viewed more broadly in the context of the V-shaped speech intelligibility function, and that whether the ΔHbO response amplitudes are positive or negative at a given alternating rate does not necessarily have a physiologic correlate. It should be noted that our analyses of fNIRS data could not parse out differences across alternating rates in the BiCI condition, at the level of the left AC. Further research into the observed graphical discrepancy between behavioral and neuroimaging data is required.

The ΔHbO data demonstrated a statistically significant main effect of hemisphere, with higher-amplitude responses in the right compared to left hemisphere. This could in part be accounted for by the observation that the right AC is sensitive to degradation of speech [74–77] and right AC activation is enhanced by attentive listening [78–81]. Examining the right AC, a new pattern of ΔHbO responses emerged in the BiCI condition when compared with the TH condition. Interestingly, there was a maximum at 4 Hz, aligning with right DLPFC activity and opposing the predicted minimum response activity at 4 Hz. It is possible, then, that the right AC is more sensitive specifically to degraded speech stimuli compared to the left AC. However, interpreting the laterality of auditory alternating speech processing is challenging. Alternating speech is most appropriately categorized as a dichotic speech stimulus (14), or an instance when a different stimulus is present at each ear. Dichotic stimuli can be represented in either the left or right AC, depending on which hemisphere is contralateral to the target stimulus [82–84]. The dichotic stimuli in this study could also be construed as connected speech stimuli because the task necessitated that listeners reconstruct the stimulus into whole sentences. Accordingly, one might expect left-dominant AC representation [85], but right hemispheric dominance (in terms of higher response amplitudes) was shown in our data; this may indicate a yet unresolved processing of alternating, degraded speech. To our knowledge, no prior neuroimaging studies involving a similar alternating speech stimulus have been conducted; further research is required to elucidate the hemispheric lateralization in alternating speech processing with and without degradation of the stimulus.

The role of the DLPFC and auditory attention in processing alternating speech

Distribution of auditory attention likely plays a key role in across-ear integration, especially in SSD-CI and BiCI listeners where the inputs are not synchronized across ears as in TH listeners [86,87]. “Auditory attention” refers to the top-down, voluntary process of focusing cortical processing resources to enhance behavioral sensitivity towards, and informational processing of, auditory stimuli [21]. In the right DLPFC, increased response amplitudes were noted at 4 and 8 Hz in the TH condition in the current study, in line with our expectation for increased frontal activation at intermediate alternating rates. In the presence of vocoded speech, this response pattern seemed to be conserved, with peak activation at 4 Hz in both the SSD-CI and BiCI condition. The significance of the biphasic appearance with a second peak at 32 Hz is unclear, despite speech intelligibility being essentially equivalent at 2 Hz and 32 Hz. The right DLPFC is thought to be involved in auditory spatial selective attention [88–90]. If listeners are switching attention between ears at certain rates, the alternating speech stimulus could be considered a spatial selective attention task, supporting the observed preferential right hemisphere activation.

The left DLPFC showed opposing activation patterns to the right DLPFC, with decreased activity at 4 and 8 Hz alternating rates in the former, which could be a manifestation of hemispheric differences in attentional processes. Post hoc analyses showed that the right hemisphere had higher response amplitudes than in the left. The left DLPFC activity may reflect attentional switching rather than direction of spatial attention [91–93], and these separate cortical functions of the left and right DLPFC may account for the “out-of-phase” behavior observed in the TH speech condition. Further, the observation that overall response patterns were consistent across speech conditions within the left and right DLPFC suggests conserved, but disparate, functions in attentional processing of alternating speech segments.

Alternatively, opposing activation patterns between the right and left DLPFC could represent hemispheric differences in degraded speech processing [39,94–98]. The left DLPFC exhibited a point of minimum activation at 8 Hz in the presence of vocoded speech in one or both ears, corresponding to the point of minimal activation at 8 Hz in the left AC. Whereas the right DLPFC only appeared to mirror right AC activity in the BiCI condition, in which there was a pronounced peak activation at 4 Hz that graphically corresponds with the 4 Hz speech intelligibility minimum point.

Evidence of cortical-level, across-ear speech integration

Based on binaural benefit data obtained using alternating speech stimuli in different listening conditions [14,99], it is evident that listeners rely on both ears at low alternating rates, and on one ear at high alternating rates, to reconstruct the alternating sentences. This observation indicates potential utilization of different listening strategies depending on the alternating rate: switching attention between ears at low rates and focusing on one ear at high rates. fNIRS data revealed that differences between 4 and 8 Hz drove the main effect of alternating rate in ΔHbO responses, implying a global shift in cortical activity between these two alternating rates. These results support inferences from behavioral data that different listening strategies governed how participants reconstruct the alternating speech stimulus. The potential fNIRS evidence for binaural fusion of the alternating speech at a critical alternating rate (4–8 Hz), and how this neural signature of fusion is impacted by peripheral degradation of the alternating speech (vocoding), merits discussion.

Our fNIRS data revealed a significant main effect of alternating rate in ΔHbO responses, driven by the 4–8 Hz contrast. This finding potentially indicates a change in cortical activity at intermediate alternating rates, which could align with a shift in listening strategy from switching attention between ears as the alternating rate increased. However, it may also reflect distinct neural processing of vocoded speech occurring in the left AC at 8 Hz alternating rate, given the strong negative ΔHbO in the SSD-CI and BiCI conditions at this rate. The authors favor the former explanation; however, our data is unable to entirely exclude the latter explanation. There was also a main effect of ROI in the ΔHbO responses, indicating that the AC and DLPFC contributed differently to the processing of alternating speech. However, predicted response patterns were not recapitulated in the four regions examined. Given the unique speech stimulus that necessitated across-ear integration to reconstruct the sentence segments, it is possible that the lack of neat alignment between predicted and observed fNIRS responses in the four brain regions may indicate a component of binaural processing at the cortical level.

Regarding the impact of degraded speech on binaural processing, prior research has demonstrated that early asymmetric hearing loss, either temporary or more permanent, impacts auditory cortical representation of binaural stimuli and that cochlear implantation only partially restores the representations observed in TH listeners [100–104]. Assuming our fNIRS results do capture a component of binaural processing at the cortical level, then we have further demonstrated that peripheral degradation of speech impacts cortical-level across-ear integration. Our fNIRS data showed a significant main effect of speech condition in the ΔHbR data; this effect did not reach significance in the ΔHbO data. Both ΔHbR and ΔHbO correlate with task-evoked cerebral hemodynamic changes [105–107] and are generally anticorrelated [31,108]. However, ΔHbO is favored in the literature due to higher absolute and relative response magnitudes and stronger correlations with task-evoked responses [109]. Some experiments have shown ΔHbR correlation with task-evoked responses [110], but the relevance of significant ΔHbR in absence of significant ΔHbO is less studied. Hence, the fNIRS data from the present study might support previous observations that spectral degradation of auditory inputs impacts cortical signatures of across-ear integration, assuming that significant ΔHbR are physiologically relevant.

Limitations

There are several limitations in this study. First, our sample size was likely not adequate to fully reveal effect sizes in the fNIRS data. A power analysis was not conducted because there have not been previous fNIRS or other neuroimaging studies examining effects like those explored in the present study. Because it was an in-person study run during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, participant recruitment was challenging, impacting the sample size. We have reported some non-significant statistical findings as marginally non-significant or analogously. Potential trends illuminated by these findings may be of interest to our readers given the novelty of the data despite the lack of power. The “marginally non-significant” statistical results must be interpreted cautiously given our analytical approaches.

Second, at the time that this study was conducted, due to Covid-19 restrictions placed on research protocols, the duration of in-person research studies was limited to 90 minutes per session, thus, conditions were selected to best recapitulate the V-shaped speech intelligibility function while minimizing experiment duration. Previous work has shown that the 32 Hz alternating rate produces ceiling intelligibility performance [7,14]. Neither a bilateral nor a monaural non-segmented (control) speech condition was included, nor was a monaural segmented condition included with which binaural benefit could be calculated. Without a monaural control or behavioral measures of across-ear integration, interpretation of the neuroimaging findings as evidence of impaired across-ear integration may be somewhat limited. Numerous studies have established different patterns of cortical dynamics in response to monaurally versus binaurally presented signals [39,111–115]. Furthermore, studies in bimodal cochlear implant listeners (those with a cochlear implant and contralateral hearing aid) have demonstrated that bimodal (binaural) benefit, which is calculated with data from monoaural and binaural conditions, can be correlated with changes in auditory evoked potentials [116,117]. Hence, without monaural control data, we generally rely on the body of existing literature to support our inferences that the behavioral and fNIRS results from our study are a manifestation of across-ear integration.

Data analysis was limited by the variability present in the fNIRS data. Differences in cap positioning between participants may have caused data to be recorded from slightly different cortical regions across participants, contributing to the variability. Wijayasiri and colleagues measured the inter-participant variability in cap placement with their fNIRS study, finding a difference of 6.64 ± 0.53 mm (mean ± SD) between participants (98), which the authors considered adequate given the 30 mm channel spacing. An analogous procedure of cap positioning was utilized in the present study, so cap placement probably contributed minimally to fNIRS data variability. fNIRS data is known to be intrinsically variable between participants and group averaging over many participants is necessary to reveal underlying neural dynamics [31,37,118]. This impacted statistical results: because the data was not normally distributed, outliers could not be excluded using parametric tools such as Grubb’s [119] test. We attempted a data-driven outlier exclusion by searching for poor performers in the speech intelligibility test, as poor behavioral test performance predicts anomalous brain activation patterns because the participant is not actively engaged in the task [120–122]. This did not prove to be a fruitful methodology, as participants may have had one or two outlying behavioral data points, but none were global poor performers across alternating rates within one speech condition, or at one alternating rate across all speech conditions. Hence, excluding the participant’s fNIRS data would not have been valid. As a result, many of our p values in post-hoc tests were marginally non-significant, and some significant findings became non-significant after correction for multiple comparisons. The rationale for still reporting these findings is that this study was in part exploratory, and they may be of interest to readers planning similar studies. Nonetheless, interpretation of these results must be approached very cautiously.

Lastly, limitations of the alternating speech stimulus itself should be discussed. A similar stimulus, the Rapid Alternating Speech Perception (RASP) test [123], was posited to assess binaural fusion at the level of the auditory brainstem and was included in the clinical testing battery for central auditory processing disorders (APD). As early as the 1980s, the validity of RASP was called into question. Shea and Raffin recommended that RASP not be used due to a lack of established “normal” test results [124]. Harris and colleagues performed a study in which 24 participants listened to one channel or the other of RASP (i.e., monotic interrupted speech) [125]. Mean sentence scores were 37.7% and 20.8% for channel 1 and channel 2, respectively, and it was concluded that RASP was not an ideal test for binaural fusion because a single channel should contain minimal intelligible speech information. A group of licensed audiologists commonly used RASP and masking level difference (MLD) to assess binaural fusion, but less than 25% of survey respondents reported implementing RASP in their practice [126]. Current audiology practice utilizes acoustic reflexes, auditory brainstem responses (ABRs), and MLDs to assess the function of the low auditory brainstem. RASP tends to be avoided due to its lack of correlation with ABRs [127]; however, mixed evidence exists for correlation of MLDs with ABRs [127–129]. Despite the drawbacks of RASP as a clinical audiologic instrument, alternating speech is nonetheless proposed as a valid stimulus to investigate differences in speech integration across the ears at cortical levels of the central auditory pathway.

Conclusions

The present study investigated how spectral degradation affects across-ear integration of alternating speech and whether fNIRS could reveal across-ear integration of speech at cortical level. Our behavioral results replicate and add to findings in the literature: alternating speech produces a V-shaped intelligibility function with minimum at 4 Hz alternating rate when speech is bilaterally vocoded that simulated hearing in BiCI listeners. Our fNIRS data, novel in the literature, reveals that {1} the AC and DLPFC are differentially involved in processing alternating speech with a specific impact of intermediate alternating rates, and that {2} response patterns are changed by the presence of degraded speech in one or both ears compared to the TH condition. The objective (fNIRS) data complements behavioral data that it may reveal differences in auditory stimulus processing strategies not necessarily evident in behavioral data alone and reflects a dominant listening strategy of across-ear speech integration at 4–8 Hz. We hope that this study will provide a foundation to better understand observed binaural hearing deficits in cochlear implant listeners compared to their TH listeners counterparts, and in the future inform individualized auditory rehabilitation strategies to provide CI listeners with maximal functional benefit.

Supporting information

S1 Fig Group-averaged ΔHbO waveforms in bilateral AC, with standard error of mean response amplitude.

Each plot contains waveforms at one alternating rate for one speech condition. Linear traces indicate mean response amplitude, and shaded regions correspond to the standard error of the mean response amplitude. Columns correspond to the three speech conditions, and data from a single cortical ROI is contained under the solid horizontal line with corresponding ROI label. Within each plot, vertical dotted lines correspond to stimulus onset and offset.

(TIF)

S2 Fig Group-averaged ΔHbO waveforms in bilateral DLPFC, with standard error of mean response amplitude.

Each plot contains waveforms at one alternating rate for one speech condition. Linear traces indicate mean response amplitude, and shaded regions correspond to the standard error of the mean response amplitude. Columns correspond to the three speech conditions, and data from a single cortical ROI is contained under the solid horizontal line with corresponding ROI label. Within each plot, vertical dotted lines correspond to stimulus onset and offset.

(TIF)

S1 Table Placement of fNIRS sources (S, n = 16) and detector (D, n = 16) on the 10–10 system.

(TIF)

S2 Table Participants with 1 remaining measurement channel in either auditory cortex following channel exclusion protocols.

(TIF)

S3 Table Summary of statistical results for ΔHbR amplitudes.

(TIF)

S1 File Supplementary materials.

This is the document containing additional information pertinent to the study for readers to reference. Open Science Framework file-sharing link: https://osf.io/xdmwy/?view_only=2d17c98b9ae34ee9864b359c07bf0332.

(DOCX)

The authors appreciate the time, support, and willingness of all participants. We also thank our colleagues from the Binaural Hearing and Speech Lab who assisted with participant recruitment and for suggestions regarding experimental design and implementation, including Shelly Godar and Z. Ellen Peng.

Author’s note

Portions of the data were presented at the Association for Research in Otolaryngology Virtual Midwinter Meetings (February 2021 and 2022), UW-Madison Division of Otolaryngology Virtual Resident Research Day (June 2021), virtual Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses (July 2021), and American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Annual Meeting (October 2021). Stimuli and data from this study are publicly available through the Open Science Framework. The file-sharing link is included here and in Supporting Information.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.r001
Decision Letter 0
Naseer Noman Academic Editor
© 2024 Noman Naseer
2024
Noman Naseer
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
4 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-42460Cortical Mechanisms of Across-Ear Speech Integration Investigated Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sobczak,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

The paper can be revised upon reviewers' comments. Please revise and submit the revised version. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 18 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Noman Naseer, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please expand the acronym “NIH-NIDCD” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The paper can be revised upon reviewers' comments. Please revise and submit the revised version.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript investigates and assess potential cortical signatures of across-ear integration of alternating speech. The study utilizes fNIRS technique to record brain signals and after processing found similar results to previous work with alternating speech. The manuscript is well-structured and has performed fNIRS data acquisition and analysis. However, it briefly mentions limitations, such as potential effects of exposure to sentence structures and the need for further research on the observed graphical discrepancy between behavioral and neuroimaging data.

Some suggestions are there to increase the effectivity of this research as

1. Which type of noise was removed by applying bandpass of 0.01–0.5 Hz? Why choose only this band?

2. The results were discussed very briefly and description of results may help the reader to better understand.

3. In statistical results for speech intelligibility, multiple p–values are non-significant, that should be discussed in the results as well and need explanation.

4. The study claims fNIRS data acquisition and analysis as novel contribution, the comparison of fMRI and EEG for the same experiment should be included to strengthen the claim and also to investigate what significance contribution fNIRS brought to the study.

5. Ethical statement and IRB approval reference should be added in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript acknowledges several limitations, including the variability in fNIRS data and the absence of specific control conditions. However, these limitations are not thoroughly discussed in terms of their potential impact on the interpretation of the results.

Additionally, in Figure 1, it is noted that a few channels have a length of less than 30mm, indicating short channels. However, the manuscript fails to provide an explanation for why these short channels are used or why the focus is solely on channels with 30mm-separated optodes. Clarifying the rationale behind the inclusion of short channels or providing justification for focusing on specific channel configurations would enhance the understanding of the experimental setup.

Furthermore, Figures 3, 4, and 5 could be improved in terms of visualization. The lines of the plots are too light in color, making them difficult to distinguish, and the figures appear blurred. Enhancing the contrast of the lines and ensuring better resolution would significantly improve the clarity and interpretability of the figures, thereby enhancing the overall presentation of the results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Hammad Nazeer

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
19 Apr 2024

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

> The manuscript cover page and various stylistic changes have been changed to adhere to PLOS ONE's style requirements. These changes were NOT highlighted in the revised manuscript.

2. Please expand the acronym “NIH-NIDCD” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

>The requested changes have been made.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

> Unprocessed fNIRS data and speech intelligibility data, along with stimuli used in the study, are now publicly available on Open Science Framework. URL has been included in the manuscript.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

> The requested information has been included.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

> The requested changes have been made.

Additional Editor Comments:

> These have been addressed separately in the Rebuttal Letter.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-23-42460_final.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.r003
Decision Letter 1
Naseer Noman Academic Editor
© 2024 Noman Naseer
2024
Noman Naseer
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
14 May 2024

PONE-D-23-42460R1Cortical mechanisms of across-ear speech integration investigated using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sobczak,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Minor revisions are still required. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 28 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Noman Naseer, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Minor revisions are still required.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The aurthors have adequately addressed all my concerns in the previous round of review. However these minor concerns need to be addressed.

1. At multiple places refrence are not cited properly, "Error! Reference source not found" is found especially under the heading, Stimuli (Page 7), page 10, Behavioral results – speech intelligibility experiment (Page 14), and fNIRS responses – DLPFC and AC (Page 15-16). The references and their citatiojn in the text need to be reviewed and corrected thoroughly in the comlete manuscript.

2. In ethical statement, ethical approval number from Institutional Review Board should be mentioned.

Reviewer #2: After a thorough re-evaluation of your manuscript and considering the revisions made in response to the previous review, I am pleased to inform you that your paper has met the standards for publication. Your diligent efforts in addressing the previous concerns have substantially improved the quality and clarity of your work.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Syed Hammad Nazeer Gilani

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.r004
Author response to Decision Letter 1
Submission Version2
2 Jun 2024

I have not included a formal Response to Reviewers as the revisions were minor and solely of a formatting nature, rather than addition of any new content. I have made the requested changes including updating the figure and table links and associated bookmarks so that they are no longer broken in the newest version of the manuscript. In the marked-up manuscript, blue and bolded text remains the same from the previous submission, however I have added the IRB approval number to my Ethical Statement as requested.

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.r005
Decision Letter 2
Naseer Noman Academic Editor
© 2024 Noman Naseer
2024
Noman Naseer
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version2
2 Jul 2024

Cortical mechanisms of across-ear speech integration investigated using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)

PONE-D-23-42460R2

Dear Dr. Sobczak,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Noman Naseer, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The paper has been revised and can be accepted now.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The atuthors have adequately addressed all my concerns and manuscript is ready for publication in its current form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Syed Hammad Nazeer Gilani

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0307158.r006
Acceptance letter
Naseer Noman Academic Editor
© 2024 Noman Naseer
2024
Noman Naseer
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
10 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-42460R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sobczak,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Noman Naseer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Durlach NI . Equalization and Cancellation Theory of Binaural Masking‐Level Differences. J Acoust Soc Am. 1963 Aug;35 (8 ):1206–18.
2 Steven Colburn H , Shinn-Cunningham B , Kidd G , Durlach N . The perceptual consequences of binaural hearing. Int J Audiol. 2006 Jan 7;45 (sup1 ):34–44.16562562
3 Hawley ML , Litovsky RY , Culling JF . The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: Effect of location and type of interferer. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Feb;115 (2 ):833–43. doi: 10.1121/1.1639908 15000195
4 Arbogast TL , Mason CR , Kidd G . The effect of spatial separation on informational masking of speech in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Apr;117 (4 ):2169–80. doi: 10.1121/1.1861598 15898658
5 Lee AKC , Larson E , Miller CW . Effects of hearing loss on maintaining and switching attention. Acta Acustica united with Acustica. 2018;104 (5 ):787–91. doi: 10.3813/aaa.919224 32863813
6 Kronenberger WG , Beer J , Castellanos I , Pisoni DB , Miyamoto RT . Neurocognitive risk in children with cochlear implants. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;140 (7 ):608–15. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2014.757 24854882
7 Cherry EC , Taylor WK . Some Further Experiments upon the Recognition of Speech, with One and with Two Ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1954;26 (4 ):554–9.
8 Wang X , Humes LE . Factors influencing recognition of interrupted speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Oct;128 (4 ):2100–11. doi: 10.1121/1.3483733 20968381
9 Shafiro V , Sheft S , Risley R . Perception of interrupted speech: Cross-rate variation in the intelligibility of gated and concatenated sentences. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Aug;130 (2 ):EL108–14. doi: 10.1121/1.3606463 21877768
10 Başkent D. Effect of Speech Degradation on Top-Down Repair: Phonemic Restoration with Simulations of Cochlear Implants and Combined Electric–Acoustic Stimulation. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology. 2012 Oct 9;13 (5 ):683–92. doi: 10.1007/s10162-012-0334-3 22569838
11 Bhargava P , Gaudrain E , Başkent D . The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech: Cochlear Implant Users and Normal Hearing Listeners. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology. 2016 Oct 18;17 (5 ):475–91. doi: 10.1007/s10162-016-0565-9 27090115
12 Huggins AWF . Distortion of the Temporal Pattern of Speech by Syllable-Tied Alternation. Lang Speech. 1967;10 (2 ):133–40. doi: 10.1177/002383096701000206 6047015
13 Huggins AWF . Distortion of the Temporal Pattern of Speech: Interruption and Alternation. J Acoust Soc Am. 1964;36 (6 ):1055–64.
14 Wesarg T , Richter N , Hessel H , Günther S , Arndt S , Aschendorff A , et al . Binaural integration of periodically alternating speech following cochlear implantation in subjects with profound sensorineural unilateral hearing loss. Audiology and Neurotology. 2015;20 (suppl 1 ):73–8. doi: 10.1159/000380752 25997868
15 Wingfield A , Wheale JL . Word rate and intelligibility of alternated speech. Percept Psychophys. 1975;18 (5 ):317–20.
16 Stewart R , Yetton E , Wingfield A . Perception of alternated speech operates similarly in young and older adults with age-normal hearing. Percept Psychophys [Internet]. 2008 Feb;70 (2 ):337–45. Available from: 10.3758/PP.70.2.337. 18372754
17 Davis MH , Johnsrude IS . Hierarchical processing in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Neuroscience. 2003;23 (8 ):3423–31. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-08-03423.2003 12716950
18 Binder JR , Liebenthal E , Possing ET , Medler DA , Ward BD . Neural correlates of sensory and decision processes in auditory object identification. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7 (3 ):295–301. doi: 10.1038/nn1198 14966525
19 Lawrence RJ , Wiggins IM , Anderson CA , Davies-Thompson J , Hartley DEH . Cortical correlates of speech intelligibility measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). Hear Res [Internet]. 2018;370 :53–64. Available from: 10.1016/j.heares.2018.09.005. 30292959
20 Olds C , Pollonini L , Abaya H , Larky J , Loy M , Bortfeld H , et al . Cortical activation patterns correlate with speech understanding after cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2016;37 (3 ):e160–72. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000258 26709749
21 Fritz JB , Elhilali M , David S V ., Shamma SA . Auditory attention ‐ focusing the searchlight on sound. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2007;17 (4 ):437–55. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2007.07.011 17714933
22 Raz A. Anatomy of attentional networks. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2004;281 (1 ):21–36. doi: 10.1002/ar.b.20035 15558781
23 Pugh KR , Shaywitz BA , Shaywitz SE , Fulbright RK , Byrd D , Skudlarski P , et al . Auditory selective attention: An fMRI investigation. Neuroimage. 1996;4 (3 ):159–73. doi: 10.1006/nimg.1996.0067 9345506
24 Nakai T , Kato C , Matsuo K . An fMRI study to investigate auditory attention: A model of the cocktail party phenomenon. Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences. 2005;4 (2 ):75–82. doi: 10.2463/mrms.4.75 16340161
25 McLaughlin SA , Larson E , Lee AKC . Neural Switch Asymmetry in Feature-Based Auditory Attention Tasks. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2019;20 :205–15. doi: 10.1007/s10162-018-00713-z 30675674
26 Corbetta M , Patel G , Shulman GL . The Reorienting System of the Human Brain: From Environment to Theory of Mind. Neuron. 2008;58 (3 ):306–24. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.017 18466742
27 Kim C , Cilles SE , Johnson NF , Gold BT . Domain general and domain preferential brain regions associated with different types of task switching: A Meta-Analysis. Hum Brain Mapp. 2012;33 (1 ):130–42. doi: 10.1002/hbm.21199 21391260
28 Cui X , Bray S , Bryant DM , Glover GH , Reiss AL . A quantitative comparison of NIRS and fMRI across multiple cognitive tasks. Neuroimage. 2011 Feb;54 (4 ):2808–21. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.069 21047559
29 Zhang X , Toronov VY , Fabiani M , Gratton G , Webb AG . The study of cerebral hemodynamic and neuronal response to visual stimulation using simultaneous NIR optical tomography and BOLD fMRI in humans. In: Bartels KE , Bass LS , de Riese WTW , Gregory KW , Hirschberg H , Katzir A , et al ., editors. 2005. p. 566.
30 Devor A , Boas DA , Einevoll GT , Buxton RB , Dale AM . Neuronal Basis of Non-Invasive Functional Imaging: From Microscopic Neurovascular Dynamics to BOLD fMRI. In 2012. p. 433–500.
31 Scholkmann F , Kleiser S , Metz AJ , Zimmermann R , Mata Pavia J , Wolf U , et al . A review on continuous wave functional near-infrared spectroscopy and imaging instrumentation and methodology. Neuroimage [Internet]. 2014;85 :6–27. Available from: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.004 doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.004 23684868
32 Dawson PW , Hersbach AA , Swanson BA . An adaptive Australian Sentence Test in Noise (AuSTIN). Ear Hear. 2013;34 (5 ):592–600. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31828576fb 23598772
33 Shannon R V , Zeng FG , Kamath V , Wygonski J , Ekelid M . Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues. Science (1979). 1995;270 (5234 ):303–4. doi: 10.1126/science.270.5234.303 7569981
34 Hoth S , Rösli-Khabas M , Herisanu I , Plinkert PK , Praetorius M . Cochlear implantation in recipients with single-sided deafness: Audiological performance. Cochlear Implants Int. 2016;17 (4 ):190–9. doi: 10.1080/14670100.2016.1176778 27142274
35 Adel Y , Nagel S , Weissgerber T , Baumann U , Macherey O . Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type. Front Neurosci. 2019 Nov 1;13 :1119. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.01119 31736684
36 Williges B , Wesarg T , Jung L , Geven LI , Radeloff A , Jürgens T . Spatial Speech-in-Noise Performance in Bimodal and Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users. Trends Hear. 2019;23 :2331216519858311. doi: 10.1177/2331216519858311 31364496
37 Quaresima V , Ferrari M . Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) for Assessing Cerebral Cortex Function During Human Behavior in Natural/Social Situations: A Concise Review. Organ Res Methods [Internet]. 2019;22 (1 ):46–68. Available from: 10.1177/1094428116658959.
38 Santosa H , Zhai X , Fishburn F , Sparto PJ , Huppert TJ . Quantitative comparison of correction techniques for removing systemic physiological signal in functional near-infrared spectroscopy studies. Neurophotonics. 2020 Sep 23;7 (03 ). doi: 10.1117/1.NPh.7.3.035009 32995361
39 Zhou X , Sobczak G , Mckay CM , Litovsky RY . Effects of degraded speech processing and binaural unmasking investigated using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). PLoS One [Internet]. 2022;17 (4 ). Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267588. 35468160
40 Saliba J , Bortfeld H , Levitin DJ , Oghalai JS . Functional near-infrared spectroscopy for neuroimaging in cochlear implant recipients. Hear Res. 2016;338 :64–75. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.02.005 26883143
41 Leon-Carrion J , Leon-Dominguez U . Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS): Principles and Neuroscientific Applications. Neuroimaging ‐ Methods. 2012;
42 Zhou X , Sobczak G , Mckay CM , Litovsky RY . Comparing fNIRS signal qualities between approaches with and without short channels. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020;15 (12 ):1–18. Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244186.
43 Aasted CM , Yücel MA , Cooper RJ , Dubb J , Tsuzuki D , Becerra L , et al . Anatomical guidance for functional near-infrared spectroscopy: AtlasViewer tutorial. Neurophotonics. 2015;2 (2 ):020801. doi: 10.1117/1.NPh.2.2.020801 26157991
44 Presentation, version 20.3. Neurobehavioral Systems; 2019.
45 Huppert TJ , Diamond SG , Franceschini MA , Boas DA . HomER: A review of time-series analysis methods for near-infrared spectroscopy of the brain. Appl Opt. 2009;48 (10 ).
46 Studebaker GA. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. Vol. 28, Journal of speech and hearing research. 1985. p. 455–62.
47 Wingfield A. The perception of alternated speech. Brain Lang. 1977;4 (2 ):219–30. doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(77)90019-0 851854
48 Wobbrock JO, Findlater L, Gergle D, Higgins JJ. The Aligned Rank Transform for Nonparametric Factorial Analyses Using Only ANOVA Procedures. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2011. p. 143–6.
49 Yeung MK . An optical window into brain function in children and adolescents: A systematic review of functional near-infrared spectroscopy studies: fNIRS in developmental cognitive neuroscience. Neuroimage [Internet]. 2021;227 (December 2020):117672. Available from: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117672.
50 Benjamini Y , Hochberg Y . Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological). 1995;57 (1 ):289–300.
51 Eisenberg LS , Shannon R V ., Schaefer Martinez A , Wygonski J , Boothroyd A . Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 May;107 (5 ):2704–10. doi: 10.1121/1.428656 10830392
52 Fu QJ , Shannon R V ., Wang X . Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: Acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Dec 1;104 (6 ):3586–96. doi: 10.1121/1.423941 9857517
53 Shannon R , Fu QJ , Galvin Iii J . The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004 Apr 1;124 (0 ):50–4. doi: 10.1080/03655230410017562 15219048
54 Friesen LM , Shannon R V ., Baskent D , Wang X . Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Aug 1;110 (2 ):1150–63. doi: 10.1121/1.1381538 11519582
55 Hauth CF , Brand T . Modeling sluggishness in binaural unmasking of speech for maskers with time-varying interaural phase differences. Trends Hear. 2018;22 :1–10. doi: 10.1177/2331216517753547 29338577
56 Culling JF , Mansell ER . Speech intelligibility among modulated and spatially distributed noise sources. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;133 (4 ):2254–61. doi: 10.1121/1.4794384 23556593
57 Wilhelm O , Hildebrandt A , Oberauer K . What is working memory capacity, and how can we measure it? Front Psychol. 2013;4 .
58 Francis AL , Nusbaum HC . Effects of intelligibility on working memory demand for speech perception. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Aug;71 (6 ):1360–74. doi: 10.3758/APP.71.6.1360 19633351
59 Hunter CR . Tracking Cognitive Spare Capacity During Speech Perception With EEG/ERP: Effects of Cognitive Load and Sentence Predictability. Ear Hear. 2020 Sep;41 (5 ):1144–57. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000856 32282402
60 Neumann K , Baumeister N , Baumann U , Sick U , Euler HA , Weissgerber T . Speech audiometry in quiet with the Oldenburg Sentence Test for Children. Int J Audiol. 2012;51 (3 ):157–63. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2011.633935 22208668
61 Winn MB , Teece KH . Listening Effort Is Not the Same as Speech Intelligibility Score. Trends Hear. 2021 Jan 14;25 :233121652110276. doi: 10.1177/23312165211027688 34261392
62 Francis AL , Nusbaum HC . Effects of intelligibility on working memory demand for speech perception. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Aug;71 (6 ):1360–74. doi: 10.3758/APP.71.6.1360 19633351
63 Nygaard LC , Pisoni DB . Talker-specific learning in speech perception. Percept Psychophys. 1998 Jan;60 (3 ):355–76. doi: 10.3758/bf03206860 9599989
64 Zhou X , Burg E , Kan A , Litovsky RY . Investigating effortful speech perception using fNIRS and pupillometry measures. Current Research in Neurobiology. 2022;3 :100052. doi: 10.1016/j.crneur.2022.100052 36518346
65 Adank P. Design choices in imaging speech comprehension: An Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analysis. Neuroimage. 2012 Nov;63 (3 ):1601–13. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.027 22836181
66 Davis MH , Gaskell MG . A complementary systems account of word learning: neural and behavioural evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2009 Dec 27;364 (1536 ):3773–800. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0111 19933145
67 Vigneau M , Beaucousin V , Hervé PY , Duffau H , Crivello F , Houdé O , et al . Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas: Phonology, semantics, and sentence processing. Neuroimage. 2006 May;30 (4 ):1414–32. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.002 16413796
68 Scott SK . Identification of a pathway for intelligible speech in the left temporal lobe. Brain. 2000 Dec 1;123 (12 ):2400–6. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.12.2400 11099443
69 Giraud AL , Lorenzi C , Ashburner J , Wable J , Johnsrude I , Frackowiak R , et al . Representation of the Temporal Envelope of Sounds in the Human Brain. J Neurophysiol. 2000 Sep 1;84 (3 ):1588–98. doi: 10.1152/jn.2000.84.3.1588 10980029
70 Abrams DA , Nicol T , Zecker S , Kraus N . Right-Hemisphere Auditory Cortex Is Dominant for Coding Syllable Patterns in Speech. Journal of Neuroscience. 2008 Apr 9;28 (15 ):3958–65. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0187-08.2008 18400895
71 Neophytou D , Arribas DM , Arora T , Levy RB , Park IM , Oviedo H V . Differences in temporal processing speeds between the right and left auditory cortex reflect the strength of recurrent synaptic connectivity. PLoS Biol. 2022 Oct 21;20 (10 ):e3001803. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001803 36269764
72 Belin P , Zilbovicius M , Crozier S , Thivard L , Fontaine and A , Masure MC , et al . Lateralization of Speech and Auditory Temporal Processing. J Cogn Neurosci. 1998 Jul;10 (4 ):536–40. doi: 10.1162/089892998562834 9712682
73 Takahashi GA , Bacon SP . Modulation Detection, Modulation Masking, and Speech Understanding in Noise in the Elderly. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1992 Dec;35 (6 ):1410–21. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3506.1410 1494284
74 Liikkanen LA , Tiitinen H , Alku P , Leino S , Yrttiaho S , May PJC . The right-hemispheric auditory cortex in humans is sensitive to degraded speech sounds. Neuroreport. 2007 Apr 16;18 (6 ):601–5. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3280b07bde 17413665
75 Miettinen I , Tiitinen H , Alku P , May PJ . Sensitivity of the human auditory cortex to acoustic degradation of speech and non-speech sounds. BMC Neurosci. 2010 Dec 22;11 (1 ):24. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-11-24 20175890
76 Obleser J , Eisner F , Kotz SA . Bilateral Speech Comprehension Reflects Differential Sensitivity to Spectral and Temporal Features. Journal of Neuroscience. 2008 Aug 6;28 (32 ):8116–23. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1290-08.2008 18685036
77 Shtyrov Y , Kujala T , Ilmoniemi RJ , Näätänen R . Noise affects speech-signal processing differently in the cerebral hemispheres. Neuroreport. 1999;10 (10 ):2189–92. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199907130-00034 10424696
78 Ahveninen J , Hämäläinen M , Jääskeläinen IP , Ahlfors SP , Huang S , Lina FH , et al . Attention-driven auditory cortex short-term plasticity helps segregate relevant sounds from noise. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108 (10 ):4182–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1016134108 21368107
79 Zatorre RJ , Mondor TA , Evans AC . Auditory Attention to Space and Frequency Activates Similar Cerebral Systems. Neuroimage. 1999;10 (5 ):544–54. doi: 10.1006/nimg.1999.0491 10547331
80 Petkov CI , Kang X , Alho K , Bertrand O , Yund EW , Woods DL . Attentional modulation of human auditory cortex. Nat Neurosci. 2004 Jun 23;7 (6 ):658–63. doi: 10.1038/nn1256 15156150
81 Hill KT , Miller LM . Auditory Attentional Control and Selection during Cocktail Party Listening. Cerebral Cortex. 2010 Mar 1;20 (3 ):583–90. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhp124 19574393
82 Della Penna S , Brancucci A , Babiloni C , Franciotti R , Pizzella V , Rossi D , et al . Lateralization of Dichotic Speech Stimuli is Based on Specific Auditory Pathway Interactions: Neuromagnetic Evidence. Cerebral Cortex. 2007 Oct 1;17 (10 ):2303–11. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhl139 17170048
83 Ding N , Simon JZ . Neural coding of continuous speech in auditory cortex during monaural and dichotic listening. J Neurophysiol. 2012 Jan;107 (1 ):78–89. doi: 10.1152/jn.00297.2011 21975452
84 Xu X , Yu X , He J , Nelken I . Across-ear stimulus-specific adaptation in the auditory cortex. Front Neural Circuits. 2014 Jul 30;8 . doi: 10.3389/fncir.2014.00089 25126058
85 Peelle JE . The hemispheric lateralization of speech processing depends on what “speech” is: a hierarchical perspective. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Nov 16;6 (309 ).
86 Ma N , Morris S , Kitterick PT . Benefits to speech perception in noise from the binaural integration of electric and acoustic signals in simulated unilateral deafness. Ear Hear. 2016;37 (3 ):248–59. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000252 27116049
87 Kan A , Litovsky RY . Binaural hearing with electrical stimulation. Hear Res. 2015;322 :127–37. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.08.005 25193553
88 Hopfinger JB , Buonocore MH , Mangun GR . The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control. Nat Neurosci. 2000;3 (3 ):284–91. doi: 10.1038/72999 10700262
89 Petit L , Simon G , Joliot M , Andersson F , Bertin T , Zago L , et al . Right hemisphere dominance for auditory attention and its modulation by eye position: An event related fMRI study. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2007;25 (3–4 ):211–25. 17943000
90 Shulman GL , Pope DLW , Astafiev S V ., McAvoy MP , Snyder AZ , Corbetta M . Right hemisphere dominance during spatial selective attention and target detection occurs outside the dorsal frontoparietal network. Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30 (10 ):3640–51. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4085-09.2010 20219998
91 Smith AB , Taylor E , Brammer M , Rubia K . Neural correlates of switching set as measured in fast, event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain Mapp. 2004 Apr;21 (4 ):247–56. doi: 10.1002/hbm.20007 15038006
92 Vallesi A , Arbula S , Capizzi M , Causin F , D’Avella D . Domain-independent neural underpinning of task-switching: An fMRI investigation. Cortex. 2015 Apr;65 :173–83. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.01.016 25734897
93 Tsumura K , Aoki R , Takeda M , Nakahara K , Jimura K . Cross-Hemispheric Complementary Prefrontal Mechanisms during Task Switching under Perceptual Uncertainty. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2021 Mar 10;41 (10 ):2197–213. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2096-20.2021 33468569
94 Wagner AD , Maril A , Bjork RA , Schacter DL . Prefrontal Contributions to Executive Control: fMRI Evidence for Functional Distinctions within Lateral Prefrontal Cortex. Neuroimage. 2001 Dec;14 (6 ):1337–47. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0936 11707089
95 Hertrich I , Dietrich S , Blum C , Ackermann H . The Role of the Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex for Speech and Language Processing. Front Hum Neurosci. 2021 May 17;15 . doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.645209 34079444
96 Sharp DJ , Scott SK , Wise RJS . Monitoring and the Controlled Processing of Meaning: Distinct Prefrontal Systems. Cerebral Cortex. 2004 Jan 1;14 (1 ):1–10. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhg086 14654452
97 Obleser J , Wostmann M , Hellbernd N , Wilsch A , Maess B . Adverse Listening Conditions and Memory Load Drive a Common Alpha Oscillatory Network. Journal of Neuroscience. 2012 Sep 5;32 (36 ):12376–83.22956828
98 Wijayasiri P , Hartley DEH , Wiggins IM . Brain activity underlying the recovery of meaning from degraded speech: A functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) study. Hear Res [Internet]. 2017;351 :55–67. Available from: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.05.010. 28571617
99 Peng ZE , Goupell MJ , van Ginkel C , Zukerman D , Litovsky RY . The Ability to Understand Interaural Alternating Speech Is Intact in Some Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners. Lake Tahoe, CA; 2019.
100 Jiwani S , Papsin BC , Gordon KA . Central auditory development after long-term cochlear implant use. Clinical Neurophysiology [Internet]. 2013;124 (9 ):1868–80. Available from: 10.1016/j.clinph.2013.03.023. 23680008
101 Kral A , Hubka P , Heid S , Tillein J . Single-sided deafness leads to unilateral aural preference within an early sensitive period. Brain. 2013;136 (1 ):180–93. doi: 10.1093/brain/aws305 23233722
102 Polley DB , Thompson JH , Guo W . Brief hearing loss disrupts binaural integration during two early critical periods of auditory cortex development. Nat Commun. 2013;4 (2547 ). doi: 10.1038/ncomms3547 24077484
103 Polonenko MJ , Papsin BC , Gordon KA . Cortical plasticity with bimodal hearing in children with asymmetric hearing loss. Hear Res [Internet]. 2019;372 :88–98. Available from: 10.1016/j.heares.2018.02.003. 29502907
104 Polonenko MJ , Papsin BC , Gordon KA . Delayed access to bilateral input alters cortical organization in children with asymmetric hearing. Neuroimage Clin [Internet]. 2018;17 (October 2017):415–25. Available from: 10.1016/j.nicl.2017.10.036. 29159054
105 Eggebrecht AT , White BR , Ferradal SL , Chen C , Zhan Y , Snyder AZ , et al . A quantitative spatial comparison of high-density diffuse optical tomography and fMRI cortical mapping. Neuroimage. 2012 Jul 16;61 (4 ):1120–8. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.124 22330315
106 Huppert TJ , Hoge RD , Diamond SG , Franceschini MA , Boas DA . A temporal comparison of BOLD, ASL, and NIRS hemodynamic responses to motor stimuli in adult humans. Neuroimage. 2006 Jan;29 (2 ):368–82. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.065 16303317
107 Scarapicchia V , Brown C , Mayo C , Gawryluk JR . Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy: Insights from Combined Recording Studies. Front Hum Neurosci. 2017 Aug 18;11 (419 ). doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00419 28867998
108 Tanaka H , Katura T , Sato H . Task-related oxygenation and cerebral blood volume changes estimated from NIRS signals in motor and cognitive tasks. Neuroimage. 2014 Jul;94 :107–19. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.02.036 24642286
109 Hoshi Y , Tsou BH , Billock VA , Tanosaki M , Iguchi Y , Shimada M , et al . Spatiotemporal characteristics of hemodynamic changes in the human lateral prefrontal cortex during working memory tasks. Neuroimage. 2003 Nov;20 (3 ):1493–504. doi: 10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00412-9 14642462
110 Lachert P , Janusek D , Pulawski P , Liebert A , Milej D , Blinowska KJ . Coupling of Oxy- and Deoxyhemoglobin concentrations with EEG rhythms during motor task. Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 13;7 (1 ):15414. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-15770-2 29133861
111 Scheffler K. Auditory cortical responses in hearing subjects and unilateral deaf patients as detected by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Cerebral Cortex. 1998 Mar 1;8 (2 ):156–63. doi: 10.1093/cercor/8.2.156 9542894
112 Heggdal POL , Aarstad HJ , Brännström J , Vassbotn FS , Specht K . An fMRI-study on single-sided deafness: Spectral-temporal properties and side of stimulation modulates hemispheric dominance. Neuroimage Clin. 2019;24 :101969. doi: 10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101969 31419767
113 Jäncke L , Wüstenberg T , Schulze K , Heinze HJ . Asymmetric hemodynamic responses of the human auditory cortex to monaural and binaural stimulation. Hear Res. 2002 Aug;170 (1–2 ):166–78. doi: 10.1016/s0378-5955(02)00488-4 12208550
114 Gilmore CS , Clementz BA , Berg P . Hemispheric differences in auditory oddball responses during monaural versus binaural stimulation. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2009 Sep;73 (3 ):326–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.05.005 19463866
115 Endrass T , Mohr B , Pulvermüller F . Enhanced mismatch negativity brain response after binaural word presentation. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2004 Mar 5;19 (6 ):1653–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03247.x 15066161
116 Balkenhol T , Wallhäusser-Franke E , Rotter N , Servais JJ . Changes in Speech-Related Brain Activity During Adaptation to Electro-Acoustic Hearing. Front Neurol. 2020 Mar 31;11 . doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00161 32300327
117 Balkenhol T , Wallhäusser-Franke E , Rotter N , Servais JJ . Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid: Objective Measures of Binaural Benefit. Front Neurosci. 2020 Dec 14;14 . doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.586119 33381008
118 Tak S , Ye JC . Statistical analysis of fNIRS data: A comprehensive review. Neuroimage [Internet]. 2014;85 :72–91. Available from: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.016. 23774396
119 Grubbs FE . Procedures for Detecting Outlying Observations in Samples. Technometrics. 1969;11 (1 ):1–21.
120 Tong LC , Acikalin MY , Genevsky A , Shiv B , Knutson B . Brain activity forecasts video engagement in an internet attention market. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020 Mar 24;117 (12 ):6936–41.
121 Song H , Finn ES , Rosenberg MD . Neural signatures of attentional engagement during narratives and its consequences for event memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021 Aug 17;118 (33 ). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021905118 34385312
122 Han CH , Hwang HJ , Lim JH , Im CH . Assessment of user voluntary engagement during neurorehabilitation using functional near-infrared spectroscopy: a preliminary study. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Dec 23;15 (1 ):27. doi: 10.1186/s12984-018-0365-z 29566710
123 Bocca E, Calearo C. Central Hearing Processes. In: Jerger J, editor. Modern Developments in Audiology. 1st ed. New York: Academic Press; 1963. p. 337–70.
124 Shea SL , Raffin MJ . Assessment of electromagnetic characteristics of the Willeford Central Auditory Processing Test Battery. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 1983;26 (1 ):18–21. doi: 10.1044/jshr.2601.18 6865375
125 Harris RW , Kaspar R , Brey RH . Monaural perception of the rapidly alternating speech perception test (RASP). In: 113th Meeting: Acoustical Society of America. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America; 1987. p. S29.
126 Emanuel DC . The auditory processing battery: Survey of common practices. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;13 (2 ):93–117. 11895011
127 Kelly-Ballweber D , Dobie RA . Binaural interaction measured behaviorally and electrophysiologically in young and old adults. Audiology. 1984;23 (2 ):181–94. doi: 10.3109/00206098409072833 6721789
128 Leigh-Paffenroth ED , Roup CM , Noe CM . Behavioral and electrophysiologic binaural processing in persons with symmetric hearing loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22 (3 ):181–93. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.22.3.6 21545770
129 Anderson S , Ellis R , Mehta J , Goupell MJ . Age-related differences in binaural masking level differences: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. J Neurophysiol. 2018;120 (6 ):2939–52. doi: 10.1152/jn.00255.2018 30230989
