Neurofeedback enhances a neural signature of selective attention to speech in cocktail-party settings

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors asked whether neurofeedback during competing continuous speech can help to modulate the attention-related N1-component in the temporal response function (TRF), which is an event-related-response-like estimate of the phase-locked EEG activity following the envelope. The research question is relevant because it asks to what degree the strength of attention can be controlled beyond the binary decision to attend or ignore something, and whether this control is beneficial for the behavioral outcome.

Strengths:

(1) Sample size of 56 participants.

(2) Control group with sham feedback.

(3) Novelty: Under-explored field of neurofeedback in selective speech tracking.

(4) Pragmatic and reasonable methodological decisions.

(5) Transparent results not hiding the fact that effect sizes are small.

Weaknesses:

Besides some need for clarification, I could only find one methodological weakness, which the authors discuss anyway:

(1) Overall, speech tracking-based neurofeedback may lead to more robust results, because the N1-extraction does not have to be handcrafted and all components would be taken into account. As the authors state, the P2-component has been related to effort, and this may provide more "room to play" for voluntary modulation.

The following "weaknesses" are related to the impact of the results:

(2) Non-translating effects to post-training trials, neither neurally nor behaviorally.

(3) Neurofeedback-related Modulation of N1

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

This manuscript investigates whether neurofeedback based on the N1 component of the temporal response function can be used to modulate neural responses during selective attention to continuous speech. Participants listened to two competing audiobooks and were instructed to attend to one of them. In the neurofeedback group, trial-by-trial N1 responses were converted into visual feedback, whereas the sham-feedback group received replayed feedback from other participants. The authors found a significant interaction between group and block for the N1 response to target speech over a small fronto-central cluster, with larger N1 responses during feedback blocks in the genuine neurofeedback group but not in the sham group. No neurofeedback effect was found for the distractor response. The authors also reported exploratory post-training effects and an association between changes in N1 and speech-comprehension performance at right fronto-central electrodes.

Overall, the study is conceptually interesting and novel. The online, trial-by-trial estimation of neural responses from continuous speech is an attractive development for auditory neurofeedback, and the inclusion of a randomised sham-feedback group is an important strength. However, the manuscript provides stronger evidence for modulation of a neural response during feedback than for learning or training of selective attention. Some aspects of the analysis and interpretation also require further consideration/clarification, particularly the use of group-specific N1 time windows, the spatial confound between target and distractor streams, the absence of artefact correction in the signal used for feedback, and the relatively weak behavioural evidence.

Strengths

The main strength of this study is its novel use of neurofeedback during continuous competing speech. Rather than providing feedback based on a general measure of brain activity, the authors targeted a specific neural response associated with selective auditory attention. The online implementation is technically impressive, allowing neural responses to be estimated from 22-second speech segments and converted rapidly into feedback. The inclusion of a sham-feedback group is another important strength, as it helps distinguish effects of genuine neurofeedback from nonspecific effects such as task engagement or motivation. The relatively large sample for a neurofeedback study and the use of natural continuous speech also increase the robustness and ecological relevance of the work.

Weaknesses

(1) The effect was present during the feedback blocks but did not increase across training blocks, and the post-training effect was not found at the same electrodes used for feedback. The evidence therefore supports online modulation more strongly than learning or lasting self-regulation, and claims about successful training or persistent learning should be interpreted cautiously.

(2) The offline analysis used different N1 time windows for the neurofeedback and sham groups. This introduces a potential bias in the group comparison because the dependent measure was defined differently between groups. Confirmation of the main result using a common, independently defined N1 window would strengthen the evidence.

(3) The target speech was always presented from the front and the distractor from behind. Differences between target and distractor responses therefore cannot be attributed entirely to attention because spatial location is also different. This limits the interpretation of target-versus-distractor differences and may also contribute to the weaker reliability of the distractor response.

(4) Feedback blocks always contained two speakers, whereas half of the baseline trials contained only one speaker. Since the presence of a distractor altered the neural response, it is important that the neurofeedback comparison is based on acoustically matched multi-speaker baseline trials. If this were not the case, differences between baseline and feedback could partly reflect differences in the acoustic condition rather than neurofeedback.

(5) No artefact correction was applied to the signal used for online feedback. Because feedback was derived from fronto-central electrodes, eye or muscle activity could potentially contribute to the measured signal. An offline demonstration that the main neural effect remains after appropriate artefact control would strengthen the interpretation that the effect reflects neural modulation rather than systematic changes in non-neural activity.

(6) The behavioural evidence is weaker than the neural evidence. There was no significant overall improvement in speech comprehension in the neurofeedback group. The reported behavioural effect is instead based mainly on associations between changes in the neural response and changes in comprehension, and some of these effects were weak before the whole-scalp analysis. Therefore, these findings are better interpreted as exploratory associations rather than evidence that neural modulation directly caused improved comprehension.

(7) Adding the distractor did not significantly reduce comprehension performance. The absence of a significant distractor effect on comprehension suggests that the listening condition may not have produced a strong behavioural cocktail-party difficulty in this sample. The large spatial separation between speakers and the nature of the behavioural task may have reduced sensitivity to distraction, which could limit the strength of the conclusions regarding improvement of speech understanding in challenging listening conditions.

(8) The study is described as double-blind, but the manuscript provides limited detail on how blinding was maintained, particularly when the experimenter manually checked the N1 estimate. In addition, participants' belief in or perceived control over the feedback was not formally assessed. These factors make it difficult to determine how effectively expectancy or motivation-related effects were controlled.

Overall assessment:

This study provides a valuable methodological and conceptual advance by showing that online, trial-by-trial neurofeedback can modulate the neural response to attended speech during competing speech. The evidence is solid for an immediate neural effect during feedback, and it was supported by comparison with a sham-feedback group. However, it remains incomplete for broader claims about learned self-regulation, persistent effects, distractor suppression, and improved speech understanding.