Back

When feedback backfires: investigating neurofeedback effects in a closed-loop auditory attention decoding paradigm

Rotaru, I.; Geirnaert, S.; Heintz, N.; Bertrand, A.; Francart, T.

2026-04-30 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.04.28.721343 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Selective auditory attention decoding (AAD) enables tracking which of multiple concurrent speakers a listener attends to and is a key building block for neuro-steered hearing devices. While AAD integrated in a closed-loop system with real-time neurofeedback (NFB) is hypothesized to improve decoding through neural adaptation and error-correction behaviour, the short-term behavioral and algorithmic impact of such a bilateral human-machine interaction remains poorly understood. Here we evaluated the effects of NFB on AAD accuracy and user experience in a single-session AAD paradigm with online NFB involving nineteen participants. They performed a selective listening task with enforced attention switches across four conditions: open-loop (OL), closed-loop with auditory gain feedback (CLA), closed-loop with visual feedback (CLV), and a condition with pseudo-auditory gain control (psCLA) decoupled from the participants individual neural activity. AAD was performed online using both subject-specific and subject-independent linear decoders on 5 s sliding windows, followed by Hidden Markov Model post-processing. Online analysis showed comparable decoding performance across all conditions. However, offline posthoc analysis using subject-independent decoders revealed that AAD accuracy in the CLA condition was significantly lower than in the OL baseline. Subjectively, participants reported that CLA was significantly more distracting and required higher switching effort. Crucially, a causal analysis of the psCLA condition found no robust evidence that higher audio gains inherently improve decoding accuracy. Our results demonstrate that within a single-session paradigm with rapidly varying feedback cues, auditory neurofeedback may degrade AAD performance by increasing cognitive load and distraction. These findings suggest that suboptimal feedback can impede rather than facilitate learning. We conclude that more accurate and stable decoders and longitudinal, multi-session training protocols are likely essential prerequisites for achieving beneficial neurofeedback effects in closed-loop auditory attention systems.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Trends in Hearing
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.5%
2
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.1%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 10%
8.4%
5
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
7
Hearing Research
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
8
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 11%
3.1%
10
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
11
Ear & Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
12
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
13
Behavior Research Methods
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
14
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
15
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
16
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.9%
17
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
18
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
38 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
19
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.7%
20
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
22
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.7%
23
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 62%
0.6%
24
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.6%