Author response: Minimal background noise enhances neural speech tracking: Evidence of stochastic resonance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural activity in auditory cortex tracks the amplitude-onset envelope of continuous speech, but recent work counter-intuitively suggests that neural tracking increases when speech is masked by background noise, despite reduced speech intelligibility. Noise-related amplification could indicate that stochastic resonance – the response facilitation through noise – supports neural speech tracking, but a comprehensive account is lacking. In five human electroencephalography (EEG) experiments, the current study demonstrates a generalized enhancement of neural speech tracking due to minimal background noise. Results show that a) neural speech tracking is enhanced for speech masked by background noise at very high SNRs (∼30 dB SNR) where speech is highly intelligible; b) this enhancement is independent of attention; c) it generalizes across different stationary background maskers, but is strongest for 12-talker babble; and d) it is present for headphone and free-field listening, suggesting that the neural-tracking enhancement generalizes to real-life listening. The work paints a clear picture that minimal background noise enhances the neural representation of the speech onset-envelope, suggesting that stochastic resonance contributes to neural speech tracking. The work further highlights non-linearities of neural tracking induced by background noise that make its use as a biological marker for speech processing challenging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.114 | 0.035 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".