Back

Infant cortical tracking of speech shows emerging spatial release from masking in the first year of life

Ahmed, F.; Zheng, Q.; Mcllwain, J.; Jabeen, T.; Lau, B. K.

2026-01-21 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.01.20.700695 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Natural listening environments are filled with competing sounds. One mechanism that helps overcome this challenge is spatial release from masking (SRM), whereby spatial separation between a target signal and interfering sounds improves perception of the target. SRM has been observed in a wide range of species including songbirds, crocodilians, ferrets, and human adults, suggesting an evolutionarily conserved strategy for listening in noise. However, an important question remains: Is an infants developing brain able to tap into the same mechanism to cope with the noisy world? To address this question, we recorded electroencephalography (EEG) from 7- and 11-month-old infants (N = 53) and adults (N = 20) as they listened to natural speech in quiet, collocated noise, and spatially segregated noise. Our results revealed that both infants and adults showed robust cortical tracking of speech across quiet and noisy listening conditions. For adults, spatial separation between the target speaker and distracting talkers led to enhanced cortical tracking of the target speech, consistent with SRM. Infants also showed SRM, with stronger tracking in segregated than collocated noise, although the effect was confined to a frontal-central region rather than broadly distributed across the scalp as in adults. These findings provide the first neurophysiological evidence that, although still immature, the developing brain can benefit from spatial cues in the first year of life. Together, these results add new insight into how the infant brain solves a fundamental perceptual problem - identifying a relevant voice in a noisy environment - using a mechanism that is evolutionarily grounded.

Published in The Journal of Neuroscience (predicted rank #2) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.