ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Hum. Neurosci.
Sec. Sensory Neuroscience
Volume 19 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2025.1623431
The Slowest Timescales of Neural Synchronization Reveal the Strongest Influence of Auditory Distraction
Provisionally accepted- 1Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, United States
- 2Program in Speech and Hearing Bioscience and Technology, Division of Medical Sciences, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
- 3Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
- 4Department of Communication Science and Disorders, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Among all the sounds occurring at any given time, people are often interested in listening to just one. Some competing sounds are merely background noise, whereas others distract attention from target sounds and are less easily suppressed. During active listening, the central auditory pathway unmixes target and distractor sounds based on temporal differences across three orders of magnitude -from millisecond differences in acoustic temporal fine structure to slower perceptual grouping factors that stretch out to multiple seconds. We developed an approach to directly measure central auditory encoding of multiplexed target and distractor sound features in human listeners to determine which timescales are most impacted by the presence of distracting sounds. Target sounds contained nested features along four timescales, including temporal fine structure (~500 Hz), temporal envelope (~25-80 Hz), envelope changes (~7 Hz), and slower changes reflecting whether target stimuli were randomly arranged or formed a repeating pattern (~0.5 Hz). Targets were presented with competing sounds that provided variable distraction levels: either a highly distracting melody or a less distracting noise. Neural synchronization to each timescale was simultaneously measured for target and distractor sounds from electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings during a listening task. Sustained shifts from random to regular sequence arrangements were reliably perceived, yet did not evoke a pattern recognition potential, nor neural synchronization changes at any timescale. Synchronization to relatively slow changes in envelope transitions of the target sound deteriorated with the addition of more distracting sounds while synchronization to more rapid fluctuations in the fine structure or envelope were unaffected by varying distraction level. Categorizing trials by task performance revealed a conjunction of enhanced entrainment to slower temporal features in the distractor sound and reduced synchronization to the target sound on error trials. By designing a stimulus paradigm that leveraged the temporal processing capabilities of the auditory nervous system, we were able to simultaneously quantify multiple target and distractor sound features reproduced in the EEG. This paradigm identified synchronization processes which may prove valuable for research on clinical populations who report difficulty suppressing awareness of distracting sounds.
Keywords: distraction, synchronization, frequency following response, envelope following response, informational masking, auditory evoked potential
Received: 06 May 2025; Accepted: 04 Aug 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Sorensen, Sugai, Parthasarathy, Hancock and Polley. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: David O Sorensen, Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.