A Comparison of Regularization Methods in Forward and Backward Models for Auditory Attention Decoding

The decoding of selective auditory attention from noninvasive electroencephalogram (EEG) data is of interest in brain computer interface and auditory perception research. The current state-of-the-art approaches for decoding the attentional selection of listeners are based on linear mappings between...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Daniel D. E. Wong, Søren A. Fuglsang, Jens Hjortkjær, Enea Ceolini, Malcolm Slaney, Alain de Cheveigné
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-08-01
Series:Frontiers in Neuroscience
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2018.00531/full
id doaj-dd2069146be6417a9a4739faab3525d5
record_format Article
spelling doaj-dd2069146be6417a9a4739faab3525d52020-11-25T02:32:43ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Neuroscience1662-453X2018-08-011210.3389/fnins.2018.00531352049A Comparison of Regularization Methods in Forward and Backward Models for Auditory Attention DecodingDaniel D. E. Wong0Daniel D. E. Wong1Søren A. Fuglsang2Jens Hjortkjær3Jens Hjortkjær4Enea Ceolini5Malcolm Slaney6Alain de Cheveigné7Alain de Cheveigné8Alain de Cheveigné9Laboratoire des Systèmes Perceptifs, CNRS, UMR 8248, Paris, FranceDépartement d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, PSL Research University, Paris, FranceDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, Kongens Lyngby, DenmarkDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, Kongens Lyngby, DenmarkDanish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, DenmarkInstitute of Neuroinformatics, University of Zürich, Zurich, SwitzerlandAI Machine Perception, Google, Mountain View, CA, United StatesLaboratoire des Systèmes Perceptifs, CNRS, UMR 8248, Paris, FranceDépartement d'Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, PSL Research University, Paris, FranceEar Institute, University College London, London, United KingdomThe decoding of selective auditory attention from noninvasive electroencephalogram (EEG) data is of interest in brain computer interface and auditory perception research. The current state-of-the-art approaches for decoding the attentional selection of listeners are based on linear mappings between features of sound streams and EEG responses (forward model), or vice versa (backward model). It has been shown that when the envelope of attended speech and EEG responses are used to derive such mapping functions, the model estimates can be used to discriminate between attended and unattended talkers. However, the predictive/reconstructive performance of the models is dependent on how the model parameters are estimated. There exist a number of model estimation methods that have been published, along with a variety of datasets. It is currently unclear if any of these methods perform better than others, as they have not yet been compared side by side on a single standardized dataset in a controlled fashion. Here, we present a comparative study of the ability of different estimation methods to classify attended speakers from multi-channel EEG data. The performance of the model estimation methods is evaluated using different performance metrics on a set of labeled EEG data from 18 subjects listening to mixtures of two speech streams. We find that when forward models predict the EEG from the attended audio, regularized models do not improve regression or classification accuracies. When backward models decode the attended speech from the EEG, regularization provides higher regression and classification accuracies.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2018.00531/fulltemporal response functionspeech decodingelectroencephalographyselective auditory attentionattention decoding
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Daniel D. E. Wong
Daniel D. E. Wong
Søren A. Fuglsang
Jens Hjortkjær
Jens Hjortkjær
Enea Ceolini
Malcolm Slaney
Alain de Cheveigné
Alain de Cheveigné
Alain de Cheveigné
spellingShingle Daniel D. E. Wong
Daniel D. E. Wong
Søren A. Fuglsang
Jens Hjortkjær
Jens Hjortkjær
Enea Ceolini
Malcolm Slaney
Alain de Cheveigné
Alain de Cheveigné
Alain de Cheveigné
A Comparison of Regularization Methods in Forward and Backward Models for Auditory Attention Decoding
Frontiers in Neuroscience
temporal response function
speech decoding
electroencephalography
selective auditory attention
attention decoding
author_facet Daniel D. E. Wong
Daniel D. E. Wong
Søren A. Fuglsang
Jens Hjortkjær
Jens Hjortkjær
Enea Ceolini
Malcolm Slaney
Alain de Cheveigné
Alain de Cheveigné
Alain de Cheveigné
author_sort Daniel D. E. Wong
title A Comparison of Regularization Methods in Forward and Backward Models for Auditory Attention Decoding
title_short A Comparison of Regularization Methods in Forward and Backward Models for Auditory Attention Decoding
title_full A Comparison of Regularization Methods in Forward and Backward Models for Auditory Attention Decoding
title_fullStr A Comparison of Regularization Methods in Forward and Backward Models for Auditory Attention Decoding
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Regularization Methods in Forward and Backward Models for Auditory Attention Decoding
title_sort comparison of regularization methods in forward and backward models for auditory attention decoding
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Neuroscience
issn 1662-453X
publishDate 2018-08-01
description The decoding of selective auditory attention from noninvasive electroencephalogram (EEG) data is of interest in brain computer interface and auditory perception research. The current state-of-the-art approaches for decoding the attentional selection of listeners are based on linear mappings between features of sound streams and EEG responses (forward model), or vice versa (backward model). It has been shown that when the envelope of attended speech and EEG responses are used to derive such mapping functions, the model estimates can be used to discriminate between attended and unattended talkers. However, the predictive/reconstructive performance of the models is dependent on how the model parameters are estimated. There exist a number of model estimation methods that have been published, along with a variety of datasets. It is currently unclear if any of these methods perform better than others, as they have not yet been compared side by side on a single standardized dataset in a controlled fashion. Here, we present a comparative study of the ability of different estimation methods to classify attended speakers from multi-channel EEG data. The performance of the model estimation methods is evaluated using different performance metrics on a set of labeled EEG data from 18 subjects listening to mixtures of two speech streams. We find that when forward models predict the EEG from the attended audio, regularized models do not improve regression or classification accuracies. When backward models decode the attended speech from the EEG, regularization provides higher regression and classification accuracies.
topic temporal response function
speech decoding
electroencephalography
selective auditory attention
attention decoding
url https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2018.00531/full
work_keys_str_mv AT danieldewong acomparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT danieldewong acomparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT sørenafuglsang acomparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT jenshjortkjær acomparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT jenshjortkjær acomparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT eneaceolini acomparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT malcolmslaney acomparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT alaindecheveigne acomparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT alaindecheveigne acomparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT alaindecheveigne acomparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT danieldewong comparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT danieldewong comparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT sørenafuglsang comparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT jenshjortkjær comparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT jenshjortkjær comparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT eneaceolini comparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT malcolmslaney comparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT alaindecheveigne comparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT alaindecheveigne comparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
AT alaindecheveigne comparisonofregularizationmethodsinforwardandbackwardmodelsforauditoryattentiondecoding
_version_ 1724818277188763648