Neural attentional filters and behavioural outcome follow independent individual trajectories over the adult life span

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
This study investigated behavioural performance on a competing speech task and neural attentional filtering over the course of two years in a group of middle-aged to older adults. Neural attentional filtering was quantified using EEG by comparing neural envelope tracking to an attended vs. an unattended sentence. This dataset was used to examine the stability of the link between behavior and neural filtering over time. They found that neural filtering and behavior were correlated during each measurement, but EEG measures at the first time point did not predict behavioural performance two years later. Further, while behavioural measures showed relatively high test-retest reliability, the neural filtering reliability was weak with an r-value of 0.21. The authors conclude that neural tracking-based metrics have limited ability to predict longitudinal changes in listening behavior.

Strengths:
This study is novel in its tracking of behavioural performance and neural envelope tracking over time, and it includes an impressively large dataset of 105 participants. The manuscript is clearly written.

Weaknesses:
The weaknesses are minor, primarily concerning how the reviewers interpret their data. Specifically, the envelope tracking measure is often quite low, close to the noise floor, and this may affect test-retest reliability. Furthermore, the trajectories may be affected by accelerated age-related declines that are more apparent in neural tracking than in behaviour.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
This study examined the longitudinal brain-behaviour link between attentional neural filtering and listening behaviour among a sample of aging individuals. The results based on the latent change score modeling showed that neither attentional neural filtering at T1 nor its T1-T2 change predicted individual two-year listening performance change. The findings suggest that neural filtering and listening behaviour may follow independent developmental trajectories. This study focuses on an interesting topic and has the potential to contribute a better understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms of successful communication across the lifespan.

Strengths:
Although research suggests that speech comprehension is neurally supported by an attention-guided filter mechanism, the evidence of their causal association is limited. This study addresses this gap by testing the longitudinal stability of neural filtering as a neural mechanism upholding listening performance, potentially shedding light on translational efforts aiming at the preservation of speech comprehension abilities among aging individuals.

The latent change score modeling approach is appropriately used as a tool to examine key developmental questions and distinguish the complex processes underlying lifespan development in brain and behaviour with longitudinal data.

Weaknesses:
Although the paper does have strengths in principle, the weaknesses of the paper are that the findings are merely based on a single listening task. Since both neural and behavioral indicators are derived from the same task, the results may be applicable only to this specific task, and it is difficult to extrapolate them to cognitive and listening abilities measured by the other tasks. Therefore, more listening tasks are required to comprehensively measure speech comprehension and neural markers.

The age span of the sample is relatively large. Although no longitudinal change from T1 to T2 was found at the group-level, from the cross-sectional and longitudinal change results (see Figure 3), individuals of different age groups showed different development patterns. Particularly, individuals over the age of 70 show a clear downward trend in both neural filtering index and accuracy. Therefore, different results may be found based on different age groups, especially older groups. However, due to sample limitations, this study was unable to examine whether age has a moderating effect on this brain-behaviour link.

In the Dichotic listening task, valid and invalid cues were manipulated. According to the task description, the former could invoke selective attention, whereas the latter could invoke divided attention. It is possible that under the two conditions, the neural filtering index may reflect different underlying cognitive processes, and thus may differ in its predictive effect on behavioral performance. The author could perform a more in-depth data analysis on indicators under different conditions.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
The study investigates the longitudinal changes in hearing threshold, speech recognition behavior, and speech neural responses in 2 years, and how these changes correlate with each other. A slight change in the hearing threshold is observed in 2 years (1.2 dB on average) but the speech recognition performance remains stable. The main conclusion is that there is no significant correlation between longitudinal changes in neural and behavioral measures.

Strengths:
The sample size (N>100) is remarkable, especially for longitudinal studies.

Weaknesses:
The participants are only tracked for 2 years and relatively weak longitudinal changes are observed, limiting how the data may shed light on the relationships between basic auditory function, speech recognition behavior, and speech neural responses.

Suggestions
First, it's not surprising that a 1.2 dB change in hearing threshold does not affect speech recognition, especially for the dichotic listening task and when speech is always presented 50 dB above the hearing threshold. For the same listener, if the speech level is adjusted for 1.2 dB or much more, the performance will not be influenced during the dichotic listening task. Therefore, it is important to mention in the abstract that "sensory acuity" is measured using the hearing threshold and the change in hearing threshold is only 1.2 dB.

Second, the lack of correlation between age-related changes in "neuronal filtering" and behavior may not suggest that they follow independent development trajectories. The index for "neuronal filtering" does not seem to be stable and the correlation between the two tests is only R = 0.21. This low correlation probably indicates low test-retest reliability, instead of a dramatic change in the brain between the two tests. In other words, if the "neuronal filtering" index only very weakly correlates with itself between the two tests, it is not surprising that it does not correlate with other measures in a different test. If the "neuronal filtering" index is measured on two consecutive days and the index remains highly stable, I'm more convinced that it is a reliable measure that just changes a lot within 2 years, and the change is dissociated with the changes in behavior.

The authors attempted to solve the problem in the section entitled "Neural filtering reliably supports listening performance independent of age and hearing status", but I didn't follow the logic. As far as I could tell, the section pooled together the measurements from two tests and did not address the test-retest stability issue.

Third, the behavioral measure that is not correlated with "neuronal filtering" is the response speed. I wonder if the participants are asked to respond as soon as possible (not mentioned in the method). If not, the response speed may strongly reflect general cognitive function or a personal style, which is not correlated with the changes in auditory functions. This can also explain why the hearing threshold affects speech recognition accuracy but not the response speed (lines 263-264).