Perceiving speech-in-noise (SIN) demands precise neural coding between brainstem and cortical levels of the hearing system. Attentional processes can then select and prioritize task-relevant cues over competing background noise for successful speech perception. In animal models, brainstem-cortical interplay is achieved via descending corticofugal projections from cortex that shape midbrain responses to behaviorally-relevant sounds. Attentional engagement of corticofugal feedback may assist SIN understanding but has never been confirmed and remains highly controversial in humans. To resolve these issues, we recorded source-level, anatomically constrained brainstem frequency-following responses (FFRs) and cortical event-related potentials (ERPs) to speech via high-density EEG while listeners performed rapid SIN identification tasks. We varied attention with active vs. passive listening scenarios whereas task difficulty was manipulated with additive noise interference. Active listening (but not arousal-control tasks) exaggerated both ERPs and FFRs, confirming attentional gain extends to lower subcortical levels of speech processing. We used functional connectivity to measure the directed strength of coupling between levels and characterize "bottom-up" vs. "top-down" (corticofugal) signaling within the auditory brainstem-cortical pathway. While attention strengthened connectivity bidirectionally, corticofugal transmission disengaged under passive (but not active) SIN listening. Our findings (i) show attention enhances the brain's transcription of speech even prior to cortex and (ii) establish a direct role of the human corticofugal feedback system as an aid to cocktail party speech perception.

Communication in noise is a complex process requiring efficient neural encoding throughout the entire auditory pathway as well as contributions from higher-order cognitive processes (i.e., attention) to extract speech cues for perception. Thus, identifying effective clinical interventions for individuals with speech-in-noise deficits relies on the disentanglement of bottom-up (sensory) and top-down (cognitive) factors to appropriately determine the area of deficit; yet, how attention may interact with early encoding of sensory inputs remains unclear. For decades, attentional theorists have attempted to address this question with cleverly designed behavioral studies, but the neural processes and interactions underlying attention’s role in speech perception remain unresolved. While anatomical and electrophysiological studies have investigated the neurological structures contributing to attentional processes and revealed relevant brain–behavior relationships, recent electrophysiological techniques (i.e., simultaneous recording of brainstem and cortical responses) may provide novel insight regarding the relationship between early sensory processing and top-down attentional influences. In this article, we review relevant theories that guide our present understanding of attentional processes, discuss current electrophysiological evidence of attentional involvement in auditory processing across subcortical and cortical levels, and propose areas for future study that will inform the development of more targeted and effective clinical interventions for individuals with speech-in-noise deficits.

Objectives: In noisy environments, listeners benefit from both hearing and seeing a talker, demonstrating audiovisual (AV) cues enhance speech-in-noise (SIN) recognition. Here, we examined the relative contribution of auditory and visual cues to SIN perception and the strategies used by listeners to decipher speech in noise interference(s). Design: Normal-hearing listeners (n = 22) performed an open-set speech recognition task while viewing audiovisual TIMIT sentences presented under different combinations of signal degradation including visual (AV_n), audio (A_nV), or multimodal (A_nV_n) noise. Acoustic and visual noises were matched in physical signal-to-noise ratio. Eyetracking monitored participants’ gaze to different parts of a talker’s face during SIN perception. Results: As expected, behavioral performance for clean sentence recognition was better for A-only and AV compared to V-only speech. Similarly, with noise in the auditory channel (A_nV and A_nV_n speech), performance was aided by the addition of visual cues of the talker regardless of whether the visual channel contained noise, confirming a multimodal benefit to SIN recognition. The addition of visual noise (AV_n) obscuring the talker’s face had little effect on speech recognition by itself. Listeners’ eye gaze fixations were biased toward the eyes (decreased at the mouth) whenever the auditory channel was compromised. Fixating on the eyes was negatively associated with SIN recognition performance. Eye gazes on the mouth versus eyes of the face also depended on the gender of the talker. Conclusions: Collectively, results suggest listeners (1) depend heavily on the auditory over visual channel when seeing and hearing speech and (2) alter their visual strategy from viewing the mouth to viewing the eyes of a talker with signal degradations, which negatively affects speech perception.