SignificanceListeners with hearing loss have trouble communicating in many social settings. In such situations, listeners with normal hearing suppress the neural representation of competing sounds, a process known as auditory selective attention. We compared hearing-impaired (HI) and normal-hearing (NH) listeners on a spatial selective attention task while measuring neural responses using electroencephalography. Compared with NH listeners, HI listeners have poorer sensitivity to spatial cues, perform more poorly on the selective attention task, and show weaker neural suppression of competing sounds. Moreover, these different measures are correlated both for HI and for NH listeners. These results suggest that poor spatial acuity produces problems with selective attention. These findings have implications both for basic science and for development of next-generation hearing aids.

Listeners with normal hearing thresholds (NHTs) differ in their ability to steer attention to whatever sound source is important. This ability depends on top-down executive control, which modulates the sensory representation of sound in the cortex. Yet, this sensory representation also depends on the coding fidelity of the peripheral auditory system. Both of these factors may thus contribute to the individual differences in performance. We designed a selective auditory attention paradigm in which we could simultaneously measure envelope following responses (EFRs, reflecting peripheral coding), onset event-related potentials (ERPs) from the scalp (reflecting cortical responses to sound) and behavioral scores. We performed two experiments that varied stimulus conditions to alter the degree to which performance might be limited due to fine stimulus details vs. due to control of attentional focus. Consistent with past work, in both experiments we find that attention strongly modulates cortical ERPs. Importantly, in Experiment I, where coding fidelity limits the task, individual behavioral performance correlates with subcortical coding strength (derived by computing how the EFR is degraded for fully masked tones compared to partially masked tones); however, in this experiment, the effects of attention on cortical ERPs were unrelated to individual subject performance. In contrast, in Experiment II, where sensory cues for segregation are robust (and thus less of a limiting factor on task performance), inter-subject behavioral differences correlate with subcortical coding strength. In addition, after factoring out the influence of subcortical coding strength, behavioral differences are also correlated with the strength of attentional modulation of ERPs. These results support the hypothesis that behavioral abilities amongst listeners with NHTs can arise due to both subcortical coding differences and differences in attentional control, depending on stimulus characteristics and task demands.

Spatial attention may be used to select target speech in one location while suppressing irrelevant speech in another. However, if perceptual resolution of spatial cues is weak, spatially focused attention may work poorly, leading to difficulty communicating in noisy settings. In electroencephalography (EEG), the distribution of alpha (8–14 Hz) power over parietal sensors reflects the spatial focus of attention [Banerjee, Snyder, Molholm, and Foxe (2011). J. Neurosci. 31, 9923–9932; Foxe and Snyder (2011). Front. Psychol. 2, 154.] If spatial attention is degraded, however, alpha may not be modulated across parietal sensors. A previously published behavioral and EEG study found that, compared to normal-hearing (NH) listeners, hearing-impaired (HI) listeners often had higher interaural time difference thresholds, worse performance when asked to report the content of an acoustic stream from a particular location, and weaker attentional modulation of neural responses evoked by sounds in a mixture [Dai, Best, and Shinn-Cunningham (2018). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115, E3286]. This study explored whether these same HI listeners also showed weaker alpha lateralization during the previously reported task. In NH listeners, hemispheric parietal alpha power was greater when the ipsilateral location was attended; this lateralization was stronger when competing melodies were separated by a larger spatial difference. In HI listeners, however, alpha was not lateralized across parietal sensors, consistent with a degraded ability to use spatial features to selectively attend.

No abstract

No abstract