Speech and music recruit frequency-specific distributed and overlapping cortical networks

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors examined the extent to which the processing of speech and music depends on neural networks that are either specific to a domain or general in nature. They conducted comprehensive intracranial EEG recordings on 18 epilepsy patients as they listened to natural, continuous forms of speech and music. This enabled an exploration of brain activity at both the frequency-specific and network levels across a broad spectrum. Utilizing statistical methods, the researchers classified neural responses to auditory stimuli into categories of shared, preferred, and domain-selective types. It was observed that a significant portion of both focal and network-level brain activity is commonly shared between the processing of speech and music. However, neural responses that are selectively responsive to speech or music are confined to distributed, frequency-specific areas. The authors highlight the crucial role of using natural auditory stimuli in research and the need to explore the extensive spectral characteristics inherent in the processing of speech and music.

Strengths:

The study's strengths include its high-quality sEEG data from a substantial number of patients, covering a majority of brain regions. This extensive cortical coverage grants the authors the ability to address their research questions with high spatial resolution, marking an advantage over previous studies. They performed thorough analyses across the entire cortical coverage and a wide frequency range of neural signals. The primary analyses, including spectral analysis, temporal response function calculation, and connectivity analysis, are presented straightforwardly. These analyses, as well as figures, innovatively display how neural responses, in each frequency band and region/electrode, are 'selective' (according to the authors' definition) to speech or music stimuli. The findings are summarized in a manner that efficiently communicates information to readers. This research offers valuable insights into the cortical selectivity of speech and music processing, making it a noteworthy reference for those interested in this field. Overall, this research offers a valuable dataset and carries out extensive yet clear analyses, amounting to an impressive empirical investigation into the cortical selectivity of speech and music. It is recommended for readers who are keen on understanding the nuances of selectivity and generality in the processing of speech and music to refer to this study's data and its summarized findings.

Weaknesses:

The weakness of this study, in my view, lies in its experimental design and reasoning:
1. Despite using longer stimuli, the study does not significantly enhance ecological validity compared to previous research. The analyses treat these long speech and music stimuli as stationary signals, overlooking their intricate musical or linguistic structural details and temporal variation across local structures like sentences and phrases. In previous studies, short, less ecological segments of music were used, maintaining consistency in content and structure. However, this study, despite employing longer stimuli, does not distinguish between neural responses to the varied contents or structures within speech and music. Understanding the implications of long-term analyses, such as spectral and connectivity analyses over extended periods of around 10 minutes, becomes challenging when they do not account for the variable, sometimes quasi-periodical or even non-periodical, elements present in natural speech and music. When contrasting this study with prior research and highlighting its advantages, a more balanced perspective would have been beneficial in the manuscript.

2. In contrast to previous studies that employed short stimulus segments along with various control stimuli to ensure that observed selectivity for speech or music was not merely due to low-level acoustic properties, this study used longer, ecological stimuli. However, the control stimuli used in this study, such as tone or syllable sequences, do not align with the low-level acoustic properties of the speech and music stimuli. This mismatch raises concerns that the differences or selectivity between speech and music observed in this study might be attributable to these basic acoustic characteristics rather than to more complex processing factors specific to speech or music.

3. The concept of selectivity - shared, preferred, and domain-selective - increases the risks of potentially overgeneralized interpretations and theoretical inaccuracies. The authors' categorization of neural sites/regions as shared, preferred, or domain-selective regarding speech and music processing essentially resembles a traditional ANOVA test with post hoc analysis. While this categorization gives meaningful context to the results, the mere presence of significant differences among control stimuli, a segment of speech, and a piece of music does not necessarily imply that a region is specifically selective to a type of stimulus like speech. The manuscript's narrative might lead to an overgeneralized interpretation that their findings apply broadly to speech or music. However, identifying differences in neural responses to a few sets of specific stimuli in one brain region does not robustly support such a generalization. This is because speech and music are inherently diverse, and specificity often relates more to the underlying functions than to observed neural responses to a limited number of examples of a stimulus type. See the next point.

4. The authors' approach, akin to mapping a 'receptive field' by correlating stimulus properties with neural responses to ascertain functional selectivity for speech and music, presents issues. For instance, in the cochlea, different stimuli activate different parts of the basilar membrane due to the distinct spectral contents of speech and music, with each part being selective to certain frequencies. However, this phenomenon reflects the frequency selectivity of the basilar membrane - an important function, not an inherent selectivity for speech or music. Similarly, if cortical regions exhibit heightened responses to one type of stimulus over another, it doesn't automatically imply selectivity or preference for that stimulus. The explanation could lie in functional aspects, such as a region's sensitivity to temporal units of a specific duration, be it music, speech, or even movie segments, and its role in chunking such units (e.g., around 500 ms), which might be more prevalent in music than in speech, or vice versa in the current study. This study does not delve into the functional mechanisms of how speech and music are processed across different musical or linguistic hierarchical levels but merely demonstrates differences in neural responses to various stimuli over a 10-minute span.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study investigates whether speech and music processing involve specific or shared brain networks. Using intracranial EEG recordings from 18 epilepsy patients, it examines neural responses to speech and music. The authors found that most neural activity is shared between speech and music processing, without specific regional brain selectivity. Furthermore, domain-selective responses to speech or music are limited to frequency-specific coherent oscillations. The findings challenge the notion of anatomically distinct regions for different cognitive functions in the auditory process.

Strengths:

1. This study uses a relatively large corpus of intracranial EEG data, which provides high spatiotemporal resolution neural recordings, allowing for more precise and dynamic analysis of brain responses. The use of continuous speech and music enhances ecological validity compared to artificial or segmented stimuli.

2. This study uses multiple frequency bands in addition to just high-frequency activity (HFA), which has been the focus of many existing studies in the literature. This allows for a more comprehensive analysis of neural processing across the entire spectrum. The heterogeneity across different frequency bands also indicates that different frequency components of the neural activity may reflect different underlying neural computations.

3. This study also adds empirical evidence towards distributed representation versus domain-specificity. It challenges the traditional view of highly specialized, anatomically distinct regions for different cognitive functions. Instead, the study suggests a more integrated and overlapping neural network for processing complex stimuli like speech and music.

Weaknesses:

While this study is overall convincing, there are still some weaknesses in the methods and analyses that limit the implication of the work.

The study's main approach, focusing primarily on the grand comparison of response amplitudes between speech and music, may overlook intricate details in neural coding. Speech and music are not entirely orthogonal with each other at different levels of analysis: at the high-level abstraction, these are two different categories of cognitive processes; at the low-level acoustics, they overlap a lot; at intermediate levels, they may also share similar features. The selected musical stimuli, incorporating both vocals and multiple instrumental sounds, raise questions about the specificity of neural activation. For instance, it's unclear if the vocal elements in music and speech engage identical neural circuits. Additionally, the study doesn't adequately address whether purely melodic elements in music correlate with intonations in speech at a neural level. A more granular analysis, dissecting stimuli into distinct features like pitch, phonetics, timbre, and linguistic elements, could unveil more nuanced shared, and unique neural processes between speech and music. Prior research indicates potential overlap in neural coding for certain intermediate features in speech and music (Sankaran et al. 2023), suggesting that a simple averaged response comparison might not fully capture the complexity of neural encoding. Further delineation of phonetic, melodic, linguistic, and other coding, along with an analysis of how different informational aspects (phonetic, linguistic, melodic, etc) are represented in shared neural activities, could enhance our understanding of these processes and strengthen the study's conclusions.

The paper's emphasis on shared and overlapping neural activity, as observed through sEEG electrodes, provides valuable insights. It is probably true that domain-specificity for speech and music does not exist at such a macro scale. However, it's important to consider that each electrode records from a large neuronal population, encompassing thousands of neurons. This broad recording scope might mask more granular, non-overlapping feature representations at the single neuron level. Thus, while the study suggests shared neural underpinnings for speech and music perception at a macroscopic level, it cannot definitively rule out the possibility of distinct, non-overlapping neural representations at the microscale of local neuronal circuits for features that are distinctly associated with speech and music. This distinction is crucial for fully understanding the neural mechanisms underlying speech and music perception that merit future endeavors with more advanced large-scale neuronal recordings.

While classifying electrodes into 3 categories provides valuable insights, it may not fully capture the complexity of the neural response distribution to speech and music. A more nuanced and continuous approach could reveal subtler gradations in neural response, rather than imposing categorical boundaries. This could be done by computing continuous metrics, like unique variances explained by each category, or ratio-based statistics, etc. Incorporating such a continuum could enhance our understanding of the neural representation of speech and music, providing a more detailed and comprehensive picture of cortical processing.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Te Rietmolen et al., investigated the selectivity of cortical responses to speech and music stimuli using neurosurgical stereo EEG in humans. The authors address two basic questions: 1. Are speech and music responses localized in the brain or distributed; 2. Are these responses selective and domain-specific or rather domain-general and shared? To investigate this, the study proposes a nomenclature of shared responses (speech and music responses are not significantly different), domain selective (one domain is significant from baseline and the other is not), domain preferred (both are significant from baseline but one is larger than the other and significantly different from each other). The authors employ this framework using neural responses across the spectrum (rather than focusing on high gamma), providing evidence for a low level of selectivity across spectral signatures. To investigate the nature of the underlying representations they use encoding models to predict neural responses (low and high frequency) given a feature space of the stimulus envelope or peak rate (by time delay) and find stronger encoding for both in the low-frequency neural responses. The top encoding electrodes are used as seeds for a pair-wise connectivity (coherence) in order to repeat the shared/selective/preferred analysis across the spectra, suggesting low selectivity. Spectral power and connectivity are also analyzed on the level of the regional patient population to rule out (and depict) any effects driven by a select few patients. Across analyses the authors consistently show a paucity of domain selective responses and when evident these selective responses were not represented across the entire cortical region. The authors argue that speech and music mostly rely on shared neural resources.

Strengths:

I found this manuscript to be rigorous providing compelling and clear evidence of shared neural signatures for speech and music. The use of intracranial recordings provides an important spatial and temporal resolution that lends itself to the power, connectivity, and encoding analyses. The statistics and methods employed are rigorous and reliable, estimated based on permutation approaches, and cross-validation/regularization was employed and reported properly. The analysis of measures across the entire spectra in both power, coherence, and encoding models provides a comprehensive view of responses that no doubt will benefit the community as an invaluable resource. Analysis of the level of patient population (feasible with their high N) per region also supports the generalizability of the conclusions across a relatively large cohort of patients. Last but not least, I believe the framework of selective, preferred, and shared is a welcome lens through which to investigate cortical function.

Weaknesses:

I did not find methodological weaknesses in the current version of the manuscript. I do believe that it is important to highlight that the data is limited to passively listening to naturalistic speech and music. The speech and music stimuli are not completely controlled with varying key acoustic features (inherent to the different domains). Overall, I found the differences in stimulus and lack of attentional controls (passive listening) to be minor weaknesses that would not dramatically change the results or conclusions.