Department of Psychology, University of York. NIHR Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit. Hull York Medical School, University of York

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 1 Peripheral hearing loss reduces the ability of 2 children to direct selective attention during multi- 3 talker listening 4 Emma Holmes a, Padraig T. Kitterick b, and A. Quentin Summerfield a, c 5 a Department of Psychology, University of York 6 b NIHR Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit 7 c Hull York Medical School, University of York 8 9 Corresponding author: Emma Holmes 1, eholme5@uwo.ca 1 Current postal address: The Brain and Mind Institute, Natural Sciences Centre, Room 120, Western University, London, N6A 5B7 Ontario, Canada 1

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 1 Abstract 2 Restoring normal hearing requires knowledge of how peripheral and central auditory processes are 3 affected by hearing loss. Previous research has focussed primarily on peripheral changes following 4 sensorineural hearing loss, whereas consequences for central auditory processing have received less 5 attention. We examined the ability of hearing-impaired children to direct auditory attention to a voice 6 of interest (based on the talker s spatial location or gender) in the presence of a common form of 7 background noise: the voices of competing talkers (i.e. during multi-talker, or Cocktail Party 8 listening). We measured brain activity using electro-encephalography (EEG) when children prepared 9 to direct attention to the spatial location or gender of an upcoming target talker who spoke in a 10 mixture of three talkers. Compared to normally-hearing children, hearing-impaired children showed 11 significantly less evidence of preparatory brain activity when required to direct spatial attention. This 12 finding is consistent with the idea that hearing-impaired children have a reduced ability to prepare 13 spatial attention for an upcoming talker. Moreover, preparatory brain activity was not restored when 14 hearing-impaired children listened with their acoustic hearing aids. An implication of these findings is 15 that steps to improve auditory attention alongside acoustic hearing aids may be required to improve 16 the ability of hearing-impaired children to understand speech in the presence of competing talkers. 17 Key words 18 Hearing loss; Multi-talker listening; Auditory Attention; Spatial attention; EEG; CNV 2

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 1 1. Introduction 2 Listeners with normal hearing can deploy attention successfully and flexibly to a talker of 3 interest when multiple talkers speak at the same time (Larson and Lee, 2014; O Sullivan et al., 2014), 4 an ability that is fundamental to successful verbal communication. These multi-talker (or Cocktail 5 Party ) listening environments are particularly challenging for people with hearing loss, as 6 demonstrated both by accuracy scores and self-report (Dubno et al., 1984; Helfer and Freyman, 2008). 7 As a result of this difficulty, children with hearing loss may be at a particular disadvantage when 8 learning language, because they not only have to do so with distorted representations of the acoustic 9 features of speech, but also frequently hear speech in acoustic environments with multiple competing 10 talkers. At least part of the difficulty in multi-talker listening arises from impairments in peripheral 11 transduction in the ear, including loss of sensitivity to higher frequencies (Hogan and Turner, 1998), 12 impaired frequency selectivity (Gaudrain et al., 2007; Moore, 1998), and impaired ability to interpret 13 temporal fine structure (Lorenzi et al., 2006). However, it is currently unclear to what extent atypical 14 cognitive abilities contribute to the difficulties in multi-talker listening experienced by children with 15 moderate hearing loss (who experience distortions in peripheral processing, although retain residual 16 hearing). The current experiments compared the ability of hearing-impaired and normally-hearing 17 children to direct preparatory attention to the spatial location or gender of a talker during multi-talker 18 listening. 19 Cognitive abilities have been found to differ between children with normal hearing and 20 children who use cochlear implants (CIs). Children with severe-to-profound loss who use CIs score 21 more poorly on tests of working memory and inhibitory control than normally-hearing children (Beer 22 et al., 2014, 2011). This finding demonstrates that atypical auditory input can potentially affect the 23 development of cognitive abilities. However, the extent to which preserved auditory encoding matters 24 for executive function is currently unclear. Given that children with CIs have minimal residual hearing 25 and may have undergone a period of auditory deprivation in childhood prior to implantation, it is 3

178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 1 unclear whether adults who acquired hearing loss later in life or people with less severe hearing losses 2 would also exhibit atypical executive functions. 3 As a result of the inherent difficulty of separating peripheral from cognitive processes, it 4 remains unclear whether moderate hearing loss has downstream consequences for cognitive auditory 5 abilities. Neher et al. (2009) used the Test of Everyday Attention (Robertson et al., 1996) to measure 6 attention and working memory in adults with moderate hearing loss. Speech reception thresholds in 7 hearing-impaired adults during multi-talker listening were correlated with selective attention, 8 attentional switching, and working memory. However, most of the participants were older adults 9 (mean age of 60 years) and speech reception thresholds were significantly correlated with age; thus, 10 it is possible that declines in cognitive and peripheral auditory processing are unrelated to each other, 11 but both related independently to aging (for example, as a result of decreased cortical volume in older 12 people; e.g. Cardin, 2016). 13 Instead of using behavioural tests to investigate cognitive function, several studies have 14 measured cortical responses in listeners with moderate hearing loss. For example, Peelle et al. (2011) 15 found that average pure-tone hearing thresholds predicted the extent to which spoken sentences 16 evoked activity in the bilateral superior temporal gyri, thalamus, and brainstem in hearing-impaired 17 adults. Several studies using electro-encephalography (EEG) and magneto-encephalography (MEG) 18 have also shown atypical auditory evoked activity in hearing-impaired adults (Alain et al., 2014; 19 Campbell and Sharma, 2013; Oates et al., 2002) and children (Koravand et al., 2012). However, 20 although these studies measured cortical activity, they do not necessarily indicate atypical cognitive 21 processes in hearing-impaired listeners: differences in neural activity between normally-hearing and 22 hearing-impaired listeners could arise either due to impaired cognitive function or because normal 23 cognitive processes are deployed onto a distorted central representation of the acoustic signal. The 24 current experiment avoided this confound by seeking evidence of differences in neural activity when 25 participants prepared to direct attention to speech (i.e. before the speech began) during multi-talker 26 listening. 4

237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 1 Normally-hearing listeners can use between-talker differences in acoustic properties as cues 2 to improve the intelligibility of speech spoken by a target talker during multi-talker listening. For 3 example, normally-hearing listeners show better speech intelligibility when the talkers differ in gender 4 (Brungart, 2001; Brungart et al., 2001; Shafiro and Gygi, 2007), fundamental frequency (Assmann and 5 Summerfield, 1994; Darwin and Hukin, 2000), or spatial location (Bronkhorst and Plomp, 1988; Darwin 6 and Hukin, 1999; Helfer and Freyman, 2005). Normally-hearing listeners can also deploy preparatory 7 attention to these acoustic cues before a target talker starts to speak. First, they achieve better 8 accuracy of speech intelligibility when they know the spatial location (Best et al., 2009, 2007; Ericson 9 et al., 2004; Kidd et al., 2005) or the identity (Freyman et al., 2004; Kitterick et al., 2010) of a target 10 talker before he or she begins to speak. Second, previous experiments using functional magnetic 11 resonance imaging (fmri; Hill and Miller, 2010) and MEG (Lee et al., 2013) have revealed preparatory 12 brain activity that differs depending on whether normally-hearing adults direct attention to the spatial 13 location or fundamental frequency of the target talker. Normally-hearing adults and children also 14 show preparatory EEG activity when they are cued to the location or gender of a target talker (Holmes 15 et al., 2016). If hearing-impaired children deploy preparatory attention in a similar way as normally- 16 hearing children do, there should be no differences in preparatory EEG activity between normally- 17 hearing and hearing-impaired children. 18 In the current experiment, we presented an adult male and an adult female voice concurrently 19 from different spatial locations. A third, child s, voice was also presented to increase the difficulty of 20 the task. Prior to the presentation of the voices, a visual stimulus cued attention to either the spatial 21 location or gender of the target talker, who was always one of the two adults. The task was to report 22 key words spoken by the target talker. We recorded brain activity using electro-encephalography 23 (EEG) in children with moderate sensorineural hearing loss of several year s duration (HI children) and 24 in a comparison group of normally-hearing (NH) children. We isolated preparatory EEG activity by 25 comparing event-related potentials (ERPs) between a condition in which the visual cue indicated the 26 location or gender of an upcoming target talker and a control condition in which the same visual cues 5

296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 1 were presented but did not instruct participants to attend to acoustic stimuli. We hypothesised that 2 we would find less evidence of preparatory EEG activity in hearing-impaired children than in normally- 3 hearing children. 4 2. Methods 5 2.1. Participants 6 Participants were 24 children with normal hearing (9 male), aged 8 15 years (mean [M] = 12.3, 7 standard deviation [SD] = 1.9) and 14 children with sensorineural hearing loss (4 male), aged 7 16 8 years (M = 11.6, SD = 3.1). All participants were declared by their parents to be native English speakers. 9 The NH children were all also declared by their parents to be right-handed with no history of hearing 10 problems and they had 5-frequency average pure-tone hearing levels of 15 db HL or better, tested in 11 accordance with BS EN ISO 8253-1 (British Society of Audiology, 2004; Fig. 1). The children with hearing 12 loss had bilateral 5-frequency average pure-tone hearing levels between 42 and 65 db HL (M = 50.4 13 db HL, SD = 7.9; Fig. 1) and the difference in the 5-frequency averages recorded from the left and right 14 ears was less than 12 db for each participant. Of the fourteen HI children, two were left-handed and 15 one had an additional visual impairment in her left eye. The study was approved by the Research Ethics 16 Committee of the Department of Psychology, University of York, the NHS Research Ethics Committee 17 of Newcastle and North Tyneside, and the Research and Development Departments of York Teaching 18 Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals 19 NHS Trust, and Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. 20 21 < Insert Fig. 1 > 22 23 The HI children completed the experiment for the first time without using their hearing aids. 24 A subset of ten HI children (aged 7 16 years, M = 11.9 years, SD = 2.5; 2 male; 1 left-handed) also took 25 part in the experiment for a second time using their own acoustic bilateral behind-the-ear hearing 6

355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 1 aids. The aided session took place between 2 and 9 months after the unaided session. We refer to the 2 entire group who participated in the unaided session as the HI U group. For the children who took part 3 in both aided and unaided sessions, we distinguish between HI A and HI U sessions, respectively. 4 2.2. Materials 5 The experiment was conducted in a 5.3 m x 3.7 m single-walled test room (Industrial Acoustics 6 Co., NY) located within a larger sound-treated room. Participants sat facing three loudspeakers (Plus 7 XS.2, Canton) arranged in a circular arc at a height of 1 m at 0 azimuth (fixation) and at 30 to the left 8 and right (Fig. 2A). A 15-inch visual display unit (VDU; NEC AccuSync 52VM) was positioned directly 9 below the central loudspeaker. 10 Four visual cues, left, right, male, and female, were defined by white lines on a black 11 background. Left and right cues were leftward- and rightward-pointing arrows, respectively; male and 12 female cues were stick figures (Fig. 2B E). A composite visual stimulus consisted of the four cues 13 overlaid (Fig. 2F). 14 15 < Insert Fig. 2 > 16 17 Acoustical test stimuli were modified phrases from the Co-ordinate Response Measure corpus 18 (CRM; Moore, 1981) spoken by native British English talkers (Kitterick et al., 2010). One male and one 19 female talker were selected from the corpus. An additional female talker was selected from the 20 corpus, whose voice was manipulated to sound like a child s voice by simulating a change in F0 and 21 vocal tract length using Praat (Version 5.3.08; http://www.praat.org/). The original stimuli were edited 22 so that each phrase had the form <colour> <number> now. There were four colours ( Blue, Red, 23 Green, White ) and four numbers ( One, Two, Three, Four ). An example is Green Two now. 24 The average duration of the presented phrases was 1.4 s. The levels of the digital recordings of the 25 phrases were normalised to the same root mean square (RMS) power. 7

414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 1 Control stimuli were single-channel noise-vocoded representations of concurrent triplets of 2 modified CRM phrases that were used as acoustical test stimuli. Each control stimulus was created by 3 summing three acoustical test phrases (one spoken by each talker) digitally with their onsets aligned 4 and extracting the temporal envelope of the combination using the Hilbert Transform (Hilbert, 1912). 5 We used the envelope to modulate the amplitude of a random noise whose long-term spectrum 6 matched the average spectrum of all of the possible triplets of phrases. 7 2.3. Procedures 8 Fig. 3A illustrates the trial structure in the test condition. The visual cue directed attention to 9 the target talker and varied quasi-randomly from trial to trial. The cue remained on the screen 10 throughout the duration of the acoustic stimuli so that participants did not have to retain the visual 11 cue in memory. The three different talkers were presented from the three loudspeakers (left, middle, 12 and right). The phrases started simultaneously, but contained different colour-number combinations. 13 The child talker was always presented from the middle loudspeaker and was always unattended. 14 Over the course of the experiment, the male and female talkers were presented equally often from 15 the left and right locations. After the phrases had ended, participants were instructed to report the 16 colour-number combination in the target phrase by pressing a coloured digit on a touch screen directly 17 in front of their chair. Each participant completed between 96 and 144 trials in the test condition 18 (depending on their stamina), with an equal number of each the four cue types. There was a short 19 break every 16 trials and longer break every 48 trials. 20 21 < Insert Fig. 3 > 22 23 The average presentation level of concurrent pairs of test phrases was set to 63 db(a) SPL 24 (range 61.6 66.2 db) for normally-hearing children and 76 db(a) SPL (range 72.4 77.9 db) for 25 hearing-impaired children. This difference aimed to compensate, in part, for higher pure-tone 26 thresholds of the hearing-impaired children. Presentation levels were measured with a B&K (Brüel & 8

473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 1 Kjær, Nærum, Denmark) Sound Level Meter (Type 2260 Investigator) and 0.5-inch Free-field 2 Microphone (Type 4189) placed in the centre of the arc at the height of the loudspeakers with the 3 participant absent. 4 The trial structure in the control condition was the same as in the test condition (Fig. 3B) with 5 the exception that an acoustical control stimulus, presented from the loudspeaker at 0 azimuth, 6 replaced the triplet of acoustical test stimuli. The purpose of the control condition was to measure 7 responses to the visual cues when they had no implications for auditory attention. The task was to 8 identify the picture that corresponded to the visual cue on each trial. The logic behind the design of 9 the control condition was that the acoustic stimuli lacked the spectral detail and temporal fine 10 structure required for the perception of pitch (Moore, 2008). In addition, because the stimuli were 11 presented from one loudspeaker, they did not provide the interaural differences in level and timing 12 required for their constituent voices to be localised separately. In these ways, the acoustic cues 13 required to segregate the sentences by gender and by location were neutralised, while the overall 14 energy and gross fluctuations in amplitude of the test stimuli were preserved. Each participant 15 completed 96 trials (24 in each cue type condition) with a short break every 12 trials and a longer 16 break every 36 trials. The presentation level of the acoustical control stimuli was set so that their 17 average level matched the average level of the triplets of test stimuli. Participants undertook the 18 control condition before the test condition; that is, before they had learnt the association between 19 the visual cues and the acoustical test stimuli. 20 After participants had completed the control condition, but before they undertook the test 21 condition, they completed two sets of familiarisation trials, which had a similar trial structure to the 22 test condition. In the first set (12 trials), either the male or female talker was presented on each trial 23 from the left or right loudspeaker. In the second set (4 trials), each trial contained all three voices, 24 identical to the test condition. EEG activity was not recorded during familiarisation. 25 2.4. Behavioural analyses 9

532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 1 Trials were separated into location (average left/right cues) and gender (average male/female 2 cues) groups, separately for the test and control conditions. Responses were scored as correct if both 3 the colour and number key words were reported correctly in the test condition and if the visual cue 4 was reported correctly in the control condition. A 2 x 2 between-subjects ANOVA compared accuracy 5 between NH and HI U children for the location and gender cue types. A 2 x 2 within-subjects ANOVA 6 contrasted the subset of HI children who completed both the aided and unaided sessions (HI A and HI U ). 7 2.5. EEG recording and processing 8 Continuous EEG was recorded using the ANT WaveGuard-64 system (ANT, Netherlands; 9 www.ant-neuro.com) with Ag/AgCl electrodes (with active shielding) mounted on an elasticated cap 10 (positions: Fp1, Fp2, AF3, AF4, AF7, AF8, F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, FC1, FC2, FC3, FC4, FC5, FC6, FT7, 11 FT8, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, T7, T8, CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP6, TP7, TP8, P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, 12 P8, PO3, PO4, PO7, PO8, O1, O2, M1, M2, Fpz, Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz, Pz, POz, Oz). An additional electrode 13 (AFz) was used as a ground site. The horizontal electro-oculogram (EOG) was measured with a bipolar 14 lead attached to the outer canthi of the left and right eyes and the vertical EOG was measured with a 15 bipolar lead above and below the right eye. The EEG was amplified and digitised with an ANT High- 16 Speed Amplifier at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz per channel. Electrode impedances at the start of the 17 experiment were below 30 kohm. 18 The continuous EEG recordings were exported to MATLAB 7 (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, 19 MA, USA). The data was processed using the EEGLAB toolbox (Version 9; 20 http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/) and ERPs were statistically analysed using the FieldTrip toolbox 21 (http://fieldtrip.fcdonders.nl/). Before statistical analysis, the data were band-pass filtered between 22 0.25 and 30 Hz. The purpose of bandpass filtering was to remove DC offset, slow drifts due to skin 23 potentials, line noise, and muscle-related artefacts. The amplitude at each electrode was referenced 24 to the average amplitude of the electrode array. Epochs were created with 4700 ms duration, 25 including a baseline interval of 200 ms at the end of the fixation-cross period. Given that HI children 26 performed the task with low accuracy, we included correct and incorrect trials in the analyses to 10

591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 1 improve power for detecting differences between NH and HI children. However, including incorrect 2 trials in the analysis did not lead to qualitatively different ERPs, or different conclusions from statistical 3 tests, than when incorrect trials were excluded (see Supplementary Fig. 2). Independent component 4 analysis (ICA) was used to correct for eye-blink artifacts, which were identified by a stereotyped scalp 5 topography. There were no discernible artefacts attributable to the hearing aids in the pre-processed 6 data from the HI A session. 7 2.6. Analyses of ERPs 8 Fig. 4 shows a schematic of the EEG analysis pipeline. We used cluster-based permutation 9 analyses (Maris and Oostenveld, 2007) to identify differences in EEG activity between the test and 10 control conditions (separately for location and gender trials) and between location and gender trials 11 (within the test condition). The method searches for clusters of adjacent electrodes over successive 12 time points that display systematic differences between two experimental conditions. The value of 13 the t-statistic is calculated for each electrode at each time point. Clusters are then tested for 14 significance by comparing the sum of the t-values within the observed cluster against the null 15 distribution, which is constructed by permuting the data between conditions and searching for 16 clusters in the permuted data. We used this method first to identify preparatory attention in NH 17 children and, second, in HI U children; we conducted the cluster-based permutation analysis in the 18 interval between the full reveal of the visual cue and the onset of acoustic stimuli (duration = 2000 19 ms). 20 21 < Insert Fig. 4 > 22 23 For each significant cluster identified in the NH children, the magnitude of the cluster 24 calculated as the difference in amplitude between conditions, averaged across the electrodes and 25 time points that contributed to the cluster was compared between NH and HI u children using 26 bootstrapping. First, a sample of 14 children was selected (with replacement) from the NH group; 11

650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 1 100,000 samples were selected to form a null distribution. Second, the average magnitude of each 2 cluster for the 14 HI U children was compared against the null distribution in a two-tailed test (ɑ = 0.95). 3 The purpose of this analysis was to equate the group sizes for NH and HI U children. The same 4 comparison was conducted between the 10 HI A children and samples of 10 NH children. 5 To compare ERPs for the hearing-impaired children when they listened aided and unaided, a 6 within-subjects t-test compared the average magnitude of each cluster in the sub-set of children who 7 completed both the aided and unaided sessions. 8 3. Results 9 3.1. Behavioural results 10 NH children achieved significantly higher accuracy of speech intelligibility (M = 66.3%, SD = 11 15.4) than HI U children [M = 29.0%, SD = 15.4; F(1, 36) = 51.71, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.59; Fig. 5], with no 12 significant difference between trials in which they were cued to location (left/right) and gender 13 (male/female) [F(1, 36) = 3.82, p = 0.06] and no significant interaction between hearing group and cue 14 type [F(1, 36) = 0.95, p = 0.34]. In the control condition, there was no significant difference in accuracy 15 for identifying the visual cues between NH (M = 98.1%, SD = 3.9) and HI u children [M = 94.7%, SD = 16 4.4; F(1, 36) = 1.43, p = 0.24]. There was also no significant difference between cue types [F(1, 36) = 17 3.14, p = 0.09] and no significant interaction [F(1, 36) = 1.43, p = 0.24]. 18 HI children identified words spoken by the target talker with significantly higher accuracy in 19 the aided (M = 41.3%, SD = 20.4) than the unaided (M = 28.5%, SD = 20.3) session [F(1, 9) = 25.71, p = 20 0.001, η 2 p = 0.74]. There was no significant difference between cue types [F(1, 9) = 0.60, p = 0.46] and 21 no significant interaction [F(1, 9) = 0.92, p = 0.36]. In the control condition, there was no significant 22 difference in accuracy for identifying the visual cues between the aided (M = 93.4%, SD = 10.4) and 23 unaided (M = 94.4%, SD = 9.2) sessions [F(1, 9) = 0.38, p = 0.27] and no significant difference between 12

709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 1 cue types [F(1, 9) = 0.16, p = 0.70]. There was a marginal significant interaction between aiding and 2 cue type in the control condition [F(1, 9) = 5.44, p = 0.045, η p 2 = 0.38]. 3 4 < Insert Fig. 5 > 5 6 3.2. Event-related potentials: Evidence for preparatory attention 7 First, using cluster-based permutation analyses, we sought evidence of preparatory attention 8 in NH children. Fig. 6 illustrates the topography and time windows of clusters that showed significant 9 differences between the test and control conditions. Additional information about each cluster is 10 tabulated in Table 1. Analyses were conducted separately for trials in which participants were cued to 11 location (left/right) and gender (male/female). 12 13 < Insert Fig. 6 > 14 15 < Insert Table 1 > 16 17 Three significant clusters of activity were found for location trials (Clusters 1 2) and one 18 significant cluster was found for gender trials (Cluster 3N). The emergence of these significant clusters 19 is compatible with the idea that NH children prepare attention for the location and gender of an 20 upcoming talker. 21 3.3. Event-related potentials: Comparisons between location and gender trials 22 To establish whether NH children showed differences in brain activity depending on the 23 attribute of the target talker to which they were attending, we compared ERPs between location and This interaction reflected average accuracy on location trials that was slightly, but not significantly, higher than on gender trials in the aided session (p = 0.40), but average accuracy that was slightly, but not significantly, higher on gender than on location trials in the unaided session (p = 0.87). 13

768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 1 gender trials within the test condition. No significant clusters were found. Thus, further analyses 2 focussed on examining the clusters that showed significantly different activity between the test and 3 control conditions. 4 3.4. Event-related potentials: Differences between NH and HI children 5 Bootstrapping analyses compared the magnitude of each cluster between NH children and HI 6 children. Cluster magnitude was defined as the difference in amplitude between conditions, averaged 7 across the electrodes and time points that contributed to the cluster. 8 Fig. 7 illustrates the average cluster magnitude for NH and HI U children. For location trials, the 9 magnitude of all three clusters were significantly different for HI U than NH children (i.e. HI U children 10 either showed a significantly smaller difference in amplitude between the test and control conditions 11 than NH children or a difference in the opposite direction to NH children) [Cluster 1N: p = 0.002; 12 Cluster 2N: p < 0.001; Cluster 2P: p < 0.001; Table 1]. 13 14 < Insert Fig. 7 > 15 16 Comparisons between HI A and NH children for location trials showed the same pattern of 17 results, except that the earliest cluster did not differ significantly between HI A and NH children [Cluster 18 1N: p = 0.14; Cluster 2N: p = 0.001; Cluster 2P: p = 0.002; Table 1]. 19 For gender trials, cluster magnitude did not differ significantly between NH and HI u children 20 (Cluster 3N: p = 0.13), although it did differ between NH and HI A children (Cluster 3N: p = 0.009). 21 Overall, converging results from the aided and unaided sessions show a difference in 22 preparatory EEG activity between HI and NH children during location trials (Clusters 2N and 2P) but 23 no consistent evidence for a difference during gender trials. This result demonstrates the key finding 24 that HI children prepare spatial attention to a lesser extent than NH children. 25 Additional information about each cluster is tabulated in Table 1. The ERP waveforms at each 26 cluster are illustrated in Supplementary Fig. 1. 14

827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 1 3.5. Event-related potentials: Comparisons between aided and unaided conditions 2 In order to test whether aiding affected the extent of preparatory attention in HI children, the 3 magnitude of the clusters was compared between the HI U and HI A sessions. A paired-samples t-test 4 was conducted on the data from the 10 participants who completed both sessions. None of the 5 clusters showed significant differences between the aided and unaided sessions [Cluster 1N: t(9) = 6 0.11, p = 0.92; Cluster 2N: t(9) = 1.23, p = 0.25; Cluster 2P: t(9) = 2.13, p = 0.06; Cluster 3N: t(9) = 1.21, 7 p = 0.26]. These results suggest that different significance patterns for the comparisons of Cluster 1N 8 and 3N between NH and HI U groups and between NH and HI A groups (Section 3.4) do not reflect 9 significant differences between aided and unaided listening. The results demonstrate that aiding did 10 not affect magnitude of the clusters; thus, there was no greater evidence of preparatory attention in 11 HI children when they used their hearing aids than when they listened unaided. 12 3.6. Event-related potentials: Clusters in HI children 13 To investigate whether HI and NH children showed qualitatively different patterns of brain 14 activity, we also conducted spatio-temporal cluster-based permutation analyses on the data from the 15 HI U children, without limiting the analyses to specific groups of electrodes or time points. In other 16 words, these further analyses aimed to determine whether the group of HI children showed consistent 17 evidence of preparatory attention (indicated by the presence of a significant spatio-temporal cluster) 18 that differed in magnitude from activity in NH children. 19 We found no significant clusters for location trials (Fig. 8A). One significant cluster was found 20 for gender trials, which occurred soon after the visual cue was revealed (Cluster 4N; Fig. 8B C; Table 21 1). We compared the magnitude of this cluster between NH and HI U children in a bootstrapping 22 analysis, using the method described in Section 3.4. There was no significant difference in the 23 magnitude of Cluster 4N between NH (M = -0.28 μv) and HI U (M = -0.57 μv) children (p = 0.08; Fig. 24 8D), suggesting that HI children did not evoke qualitatively different EEG activity to NH children. 25 26 < Insert Fig. 8 > 15

886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 1 2 3.7. Event-related potentials: Variability in NH and HI children 3 Given our sample of HI children varied in both age and aetiology, it was possible that the HI 4 children were more variable in evoking preparatory EEG activity than NH children. We used Levene s 5 test for equality of variances to determine whether the variance in cluster magnitude differed 6 between the NH and HI U children. There were no significant differences in variance for any of the four 7 clusters found in NH children [Cluster 1N: F = 0.70, p = 0.41; Cluster 2N: F = 27, p = 0.61; Cluster 2P: F 8 = 0.26, p = 0.61; Cluster 3N: F = 2.67, p = 0.11]. This result demonstrates that HI children were no more 9 variable than NH children in evoking preparatory EEG activity. Thus, increased variability was not the 10 reason why we found fewer significant clusters in HI children than NH children. 11 4. Discussion 12 HI children showed significantly less evidence of preparatory attention than NH children, 13 demonstrated by smaller differences in event-related potentials (ERPs) when visual stimuli cued 14 spatial attention to one of three talkers compared to when the same visual stimuli had no implications 15 for auditory attention. Such differences would arise if hearing-impaired children deployed less 16 preparatory activity than normally-hearing children, or if they invoked activity with different latencies 17 or in different brain regions that varied across the group of hearing-impaired children. Thus, the result 18 is compatible with the idea that HI children prepare spatial attention less consistently than NH 19 children. 20 4.1. Preparatory EEG activity in NH children 21 Previous experiments demonstrate that adults and children aged 7 13 years with normal 22 hearing show preparatory brain activity before a target talker begins to speak (Hill and Miller, 2010; 23 Holmes et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2013). Consistent with this finding, NH children aged 8 15 years in the 24 current experiment showed significant differences in ERPs between trials in which a visual cue directed 25 attention to the spatial location of an upcoming talker and trials in which the same visual cue was 16

945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1 presented but did not have implications for auditory attention. The current results are consistent with 2 the idea that NH children prepare their attention for the location of an upcoming target talker during 3 multi-talker listening. 4 Preparation for location evoked significant activity in two distinct time periods: the first 5 started shortly (< 75 ms) after the visual cue was revealed and lasted for approximately 300 ms; the 6 second occurred throughout the 1000 ms immediately before the talkers began to speak. In general, 7 these findings are consistent with the idea that participants with normal hearing evoke preparatory 8 brain activity before the onset of an acoustical target stimulus (Banerjee et al., 2011; Müller and Weisz, 9 2012; Voisin et al., 2006). These findings are also consistent with the results of previous experiments 10 with a similar design that tested adults and children with normal hearing (Holmes et al., 2016). Holmes 11 et al. (2016) used a speech intelligibility task that was similar to the current experiment, except that 12 (1) two, rather than three, talkers spoke simultaneously and (2) the preparatory interval was 1000 ms 13 instead of 2000 ms. Similar to the current experiment, Holmes et al. (2016) found preparatory activity 14 that began soon after a visual cue for location was presented and which was sustained before two 15 talkers started speaking. However, by using a longer preparatory interval, the current experiment 16 separated preparatory activity that occurred in two distinct time periods: the first occurred shortly 17 after the visual cue was revealed and thus likely reflects initial processing and interpretation of the 18 cue; the second occurred immediately before the talkers begin speaking and may therefore reflect 19 anticipation of characteristics of the upcoming talkers. 20 The preparatory ERPs identified in NH children that occurred in the 1000 ms immediately 21 before the talkers began to speak resemble the contingent negative variation (CNV; Walter et al., 22 1964), an ERP thought to reflect anticipation of an upcoming stimulus (e.g. Chennu et al., 2013). 23 Figures 6C (location trials) and 6F (gender trials) show that ERPs in the test condition were significantly 24 more negative than the control condition immediately before the talkers started speaking (1170 0 ms 25 prior to the onset of the talkers in location trials and 473 0 ms prior in gender trials); during these 26 time periods, ERPs elicited by visual cues in the control condition (in which acoustic stimuli were 17

1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1 presented but were not relevant to the participants task) were approximately at baseline level, 2 whereas ERPs in the test condition were negative. Thus, differences in ERPs between the test and 3 control conditions in Figures 6C and 6F might possibly reflect the CNV (although it is unclear whether 4 the topography observed in the current experiment matches that of the CNV, given that the current 5 experiment used the average reference and previous CNV experiments have typically used a mastoids 6 or tip of the nose reference). 7 The latency of the CNV is correlated with the length of subjective judgements of interval 8 duration (Ruchkin et al., 1977), suggesting that the CNV reflects anticipation of the time at which a 9 target stimulus will occur. In addition, the CNV has been observed in both the visual and auditory 10 modalities (e.g. Pasinski et al., 2016; Walter et al., 1964), which suggests it reflects preparation that is 11 not specific to any particular attribute or modality. Indeed, consistent with the idea that the CNV does 12 not only reflect preparation for one particular stimulus attribute, we observed activity resembling the 13 CNV on both location (Figure 6C) and gender (Figure 6F) trials and found no significant differences in 14 preparatory ERPs between location and gender trials. Given that larger CNV magnitudes are related 15 to better detection of acoustic target stimuli (Rockstroh et al., 1993), the activity shown in Figures 6C 16 and 6F may reflect preparatory activity that is beneficial for speech intelligibility during multi-talker 17 listening. 18 4.2. Differences between NH and HI children 19 Comparisons between NH and HI children showed atypical ERPs in HI children during location 20 trials the difference in amplitude between the test and control conditions was significantly smaller 21 for HI than NH children (Clusters 2N and 2P; Fig. 7A). Moreover, that result was found when HI children 22 listened both unaided and aided. This result is consistent with the idea that HI children do not deploy 23 preparatory spatial attention to the same extent as NH children. Compatible with this finding, HI 24 children also showed significantly poorer accuracy of speech intelligibility than NH children. Since 25 directing preparatory spatial attention has previously been found to improve the understanding of a 26 talker by adults with normal hearing (Best et al., 2007; Ericson et al., 2004; Kidd et al., 2005), it is 18

1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1 possible that difficulties preparing spatial attention contributed to poor speech understanding by HI 2 children during the current task. The idea that HI children do not engage preparatory brain activity to 3 the same extent as NH children is consistent with the results of Best et al. (2009) who showed that 4 adults with moderate hearing loss gained less improvement in the accuracy of speech intelligibility 5 than NH adults when they were cued to the spatial location of a talker. Together, the findings of Best 6 et al. and the current experiment suggest that hearing loss leads to atypical preparatory attention, 7 which reduces the benefit to speech understanding gained from knowing the spatial location of a 8 talker before they start speaking. 9 One difference between HI and NH children was in the cluster that resembled the CNV (Cluster 10 2N, Figure 7A). There is some evidence from magnetoencephalography (MEG; Basile et al., 1997) and 11 EEG (Segalowitz and Davies, 2004) source localisation that the magnitude of the CNV is related to the 12 magnitude of activity in prefrontal cortex. Segalowitz and Davis (2004) showed that the development 13 of executive functions, such as working memory, in children relates to the strength of the CNV in a 14 Go/No-Go task and they, thus, suggest that the CNV may relate to development of the frontal 15 attentional network. Consistent with this idea, lower CNV magnitudes are observed in reaction-time 16 tasks when distracting visual stimuli that need to later be recalled are presented in the interval 17 between a cue and an auditory target stimulus than when no distracting stimuli are presented (Tecce 18 and Scheff, 1969; Travis and Tecce, 1998). Thus, it is possible that the difference in Cluster 2N between 19 HI and NH children could result from HI children having a less mature frontal attentional network. On 20 the other hand, Wӧstmann et al. (2015) showed that, within participants, the magnitude of the CNV 21 related to task difficulty and to the extent of temporal fine structure degradation of acoustic speech 22 stimuli. Therefore, the difference in Cluster 2N in the current experiment could reflect greater 23 difficulty of multi-talker listening for HI children, a loss of temporal fine structure information resulting 24 from hearing loss, or a combination of both of these factors. Future experiments could distinguish 25 these possibilities by examining the extent to which the difference in preparatory ERPs exists between 26 NH and HI children under different task conditions. For example, preparatory brain activity could be 19

1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1 compared between NH and HI children during multi-talker listening when the speech stimuli are 2 degraded for both groups and when the accuracy of speech intelligibility is similar for NH and HI 3 children. Any differences in preparatory brain activity could attempt to be localised using EEG or MEG 4 source reconstruction techniques to examine whether differences could be attributable to 5 development of the frontal attention network. 6 The current results demonstrate atypical spatial auditory attention in children with moderate 7 hearing loss, although the typical role of experience on the development of this ability is unclear. One 8 hypothesis is that a degraded representation of the cues used to distinguish talkers by their location 9 results in a reduced ability to prepare to attend to a talker based on his or her spatial location. This 10 hypothesis is consistent with the idea that reduced preparatory spatial attention is a direct 11 consequence of hearing loss and predicts that atypical spatial attention would be observed in all 12 listeners whose hearing loss distorts the ability to resolve sounds at different spatial locations. In 13 addition, this hypothesis suggests that preparatory spatial attention could be restored only if the 14 peripheral representation of spatial location is also restored. Alternatively, hearing loss may affect the 15 ability to direct selective attention in a more general manner that is not specific to the peripheral cues 16 to which the listener has access. The latter hypothesis seems more likely, given that hearing-impaired 17 children in the current experiment were able to perform the task with above-chance accuracy despite 18 showing no consistent evidence of preparatory attention. This result suggests that the children had 19 sufficient peripheral representations of spatial location to identify a target talker based on their 20 location. However, further work is required to disambiguate these two alternatives. For example, 21 future experiments could investigate the relationship between spatial localisation and/or 22 discrimination abilities and preparatory attention in hearing-impaired people. 23 During gender trials, there was no consistent evidence for atypical ERPs in HI children, 24 although, NH children did not display preparatory attention for gender to the same extent as they 25 displayed preparatory attention for location (Fig. 7). It is possible that the cues for gender used in the 26 current experiment evoked preparatory attention only minimally for both NH and HI children. This 20

1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1 interpretation is consistent with the results of Holmes et al. (2016) who also found minimal evidence 2 of preparatory EEG activity when NH children were cued to the gender of a target talker. 3 The analyses reported in this paper included correct and incorrect trials. The rationale was 4 that HI children performed the task with low accuracy and, therefore, removing all incorrect trials 5 would lead to lower signal-to-noise ratio in the average ERPs and, hence, lower statistical power to 6 detect differences between NH and HI children. However, this decision meant that differences in EEG 7 activity between NH and HI children could potentially reflect differences in behavioural performance 8 between NH and HI children, rather than the EEG activity that accompanied successful trials (which 9 might produce confounds, for example, if one group was not engaged in the task for all trials of the 10 experiment). We, thus, conducted a separate analysis in HI children comparing activity evoked on 11 correct trials with average activity evoked on correct and incorrect trials. The analysis of correct trials 12 revealed similar patterns of activity as the analysis that included correct and incorrect trials. This result 13 suggests that differences between NH and HI children cannot be explained by the contribution of 14 qualitatively different activity on incorrect than correct trials. Instead, the results are attributable to 15 differences in preparatory EEG activity between the NH and HI groups. 16 4.3. Effect of aiding 17 A within-subjects comparison between the aided and unaided sessions (which were 18 conducted on different days, separated by up to nine months) showed no significant difference in the 19 magnitude of the clusters. In addition, comparisons between NH and HI A groups showed similar results 20 to comparisons between NH and HI U children in both instances, Clusters 2N and 2P (which occurred 21 on location trials) showed significant differences between the NH and HI children. This result 22 demonstrates that differences in preparatory attention between HI and NH children did not arise due 23 to unfamiliar listening conditions or lack of audibility in the HI children. Another implication of this 24 result is that acoustic hearing aids do not restore normal preparatory spatial attention in children with 25 moderate sensorineural hearing loss. 26 4.4. Possible compensatory mechanisms 21

1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1 The results demonstrate that HI children do not display the same preparatory processes as 2 NH children when they are cued to the location of an upcoming talker. Furthermore, we found no 3 consistent evidence of preparatory spatial attention in HI children because there were no significant 4 clusters in HI children during location trials (Fig. 8A). This outcome is consistent with the idea that HI 5 children did not systematically compensate for hearing loss by engaging qualitatively different 6 preparatory brain activity to NH children or by engaging similar brain activity with a different time 7 course. Rather, the results are consistent with the idea that the group of HI children, overall, showed 8 either weaker or less consistent preparatory spatial attention than the group of NH children. 9 There was one significant cluster in HI children during gender trials, which occurred very soon 10 after the visual cue was revealed (Fig. 8B C). However, there was no evidence that the magnitude of 11 this cluster differed between NH and HI U children, which is again consistent with idea that HI children 12 did not engage qualitatively different preparatory brain activity to NH children. 13 Although HI children did not show additional preparatory activity that was different to the NH 14 children, different hearing-impaired children might have adopted different strategies to prepare 15 attention. The resulting lack of consistency might explain the general absence of significant clusters in 16 the group of HI children. We do not have information about the specific aetiology, duration of hearing 17 loss, or time of onset of the hearing loss for the HI children, but variability in these factors could 18 potentially be related to differences in preparatory attention. On the other hand, if those factors had 19 a large impact on preparatory EEG activity, we would expect individual variability in HI children to be 20 greater than that in NH children. The data do not provide evidence to support this idea, given that the 21 variance in cluster magnitude did not differ significantly between HI U and NH children. Although the 22 current numbers of participants do not provide sufficient power to examine whether preparatory EEG 23 activity related to age or audiometric thresholds, characterising the factors that influence the extent 24 of preparatory attention in children with normal and impaired hearing would be an interesting aim for 25 future studies. 22

1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1 The children who took part in the current experiment may have undergone a period of 2 auditory deprivation resulting from their hearing loss during a critical or sensitive period of 3 development. If this explanation is correct, individuals who acquired hearing loss during adulthood 4 may not show similar deficits in preparatory attention. Furthermore, preparatory attention would be 5 expected to differ between different people with hearing loss, depending on the age of onset of their 6 hearing loss and perhaps also on the age at which they received hearing aids. 7 In addition, the current experiment tested individuals with moderate hearing loss and, thus, 8 it is not clear whether the extent of hearing loss affects the extent to which attention is atypical. Beer 9 et al. (2011, 2014) measured executive functions in children with severe-to-profound hearing loss who 10 used CIs. Compared to normally-hearing children, children with CIs showed reduced ability to perform 11 tests of working memory and inhibitory control. This result is consistent with the idea that hearing 12 loss has consequences for central processing. This result is also relevant to the current findings 13 because preparing to attend to a talker may be related to the processes of maintaining in memory the 14 identity and spatial locations of multiple talkers and inhibiting the representations of irrelevant 15 talkers. The experiments of Beer and colleagues differ from the current experiments in that they used 16 parent reports of executive function abilities (Beer et al., 2011) and visual tests of executive function 17 (Beer et al., 2014). Therefore, a comparison between the current experiment and the experiments of 18 Beer and colleagues does not reveal whether the types or extent of executive function deficits differ 19 between children with moderate and children with severe-to-profound hearing loss. 20 Children with severe-to-profound hearing loss might be expected to show greater deficits in 21 executive function abilities, or perhaps a wider variety of executive function abilities that are affected, 22 than children with moderate hearing loss. That prediction follows from the idea that children with 23 severe-to-profound hearing loss would have experienced a period of time (between the onset of 24 hearing loss and receiving cochlear implants) during which they were more deprived of acoustic 25 stimulation than children with moderate hearing losses (who would have experienced a delay 26 between the onset of hearing loss and receiving hearing aids, but who have greater preservation of 23

1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1 residual hearing). In addition, CIs and hearing aids provide different types of acoustic information to 2 the listener that may affect the ability of executive functions to develop after rehabilitation. The 3 current experiment reveals that children with moderate hearing loss show atypical preparatory 4 attention during multi-talker listening, which might relate directly to the difficulty they experience in 5 multi-talker environments; however, it does not reveal whether other executive functions, including 6 those in other sensory modalities, are atypical. Nevertheless, a link between the lack of preparatory 7 activity obtained in the current experiment and broader executive function abilities is possible 8 because the development of executive functions, such as working memory, has been related to the 9 strength of the CNV (Segalowitz and Davies, 2004). Greater understanding of how hearing loss affects 10 executive function could be gained by directly comparing individuals with different hearing loss 11 aetiologies on the same executive function tasks. In addition, it would be informative for future studies 12 to examine the relationship between preparatory attention during multi-talker listening and a broader 13 range of executive function abilities. 14 4.5. Implications 15 Current interventions for impaired hearing, such as acoustic hearing aids, are targeted at 16 overcoming a loss of sensitivity at the auditory periphery. The current results have potential 17 implications for rehabilitation, because they suggest that atypical auditory attention might be one 18 factor that contributes to difficulty understanding speech for HI children during multi-talker listening. 19 Although it is currently unclear how attention abilities could be restored, improving auditory attention 20 abilities (e.g. through training) might help hearing-impaired children to understand speech in the 21 presence of other competing speech a situation that would frequently be encountered in noisy 22 environments at home and at school. 23 Better understanding of the conditions under which hearing loss affects attention and the 24 extent to which hearing loss affects other executive functions is required to identify the underlying 25 cause of atypical attention in hearing-impaired children. This knowledge may provide insights into 26 novel strategies by which auditory attention could be restored in hearing-impaired children. If 24

1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1 directing preparatory attention relies on accurate representations of the cues used to direct attention, 2 focusing on improving those cues may be desirable for future rehabilitation. Whereas, if a wider 3 variety of executive functions are affected by hearing loss, then cognitive training may be more 4 appropriate (see Posner et al., 2015, for a review). The success of these rehabilitation techniques may 5 also depend on whether a critical or sensitive period exists for the development of executive functions. 6 Given there may be individual variability in executive function ability depending on the extent of 7 hearing loss or age of onset, different rehabilitation strategies may be best suited to different 8 individuals. Future experiments should aim to identify whether hearing loss aetiology affects 9 executive function and whether it is possible to restore preparatory brain activity in hearing-impaired 10 children. 11 5. Conclusion 12 The results demonstrate that moderate sensorineural hearing loss has consequences for 13 central auditory processing. When presented with a visual cue that directed attention to the location 14 of an upcoming talker, NH children utilised preparatory brain activity. The group of HI children showed 15 significantly weaker evidence of preparatory brain activity than the group of NH children. This result 16 suggests that, on average, HI children do not direct preparatory spatial attention to the same extent 17 as NH children of a similar age. In addition, preparatory spatial attention was not restored when HI 18 children listened using their acoustic hearing aids. Consequently, difficulties with preparatory 19 attention in hearing-impaired children are likely to contribute to difficulties understanding speech in 20 noisy acoustic environments. 25

1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1 Acknowledgements 2 This work was supported by a studentship from the Goodricke Appeal Fund to EH. For their 3 help recruiting patients, we thank Gerard Reilly and Kate Iley of the York Teaching Hospital NHS 4 Foundation Trust, Aung Nyunt of Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Sanjay Verma and 5 Mirriam Iqbal of The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, and Christopher Raine, Rob Gardner, and 6 Sara Morgan of Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. 26

1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1 References 2 Alain, C., Roye, A., Salloum, C., 2014. Effects of age-related hearing loss and background noise on 3 neuromagnetic activity from auditory cortex. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 8, 8. 4 doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00008 5 Assmann, P.F., Summerfield, A.Q., 1994. The contribution of waveform interactions to the 6 perception of concurrent vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 471 484. 7 Banerjee, S., Snyder, A.C., Molholm, S., Foxe, J.J., 2011. Oscillatory alpha-band mechanisms and the 8 deployment of spatial attention to anticipated auditory and visual target locations: Supramodal 9 or sensory-specific control. J. Neurosci. 31, 9923 9932. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4660-10 10.2011.Oscillatory 11 Basile, L.F., Brunder, D.G., Tarkka, I.M., Papanicolaou, A.C., 1997. Magnetic fields from human 12 prefrontal cortex differ during two recognition tasks. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 27, 29 41. 13 Beer, J., Kronenberger, W.G., Castellanos, I., Colson, B.G., Henning, S.C., Pisoni, D.B., 2014. Executive 14 Functioning Skills in Preschool-Age Children With Cochlear Implants. J. Speech, Lang. Hear. Res. 15 57, 1521 34. doi:10.1044/2014 16 Beer, J., Kronenberger, W.G., Pisoni, D.B., 2011. Executive function in everyday life: implications for 17 young cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int. 12, S89-91. 18 doi:10.1016/j.pestbp.2011.02.012.investigations 19 Best, V., Marrone, N., Mason, C.R., Kidd, G., Shinn-Cunningham, B.G., 2009. Effects of sensorineural 20 hearing loss on visually guided attention in a multitalker environment. J. Assoc. Res. 21 Otolaryngol. 10, 142 9. doi:10.1007/s10162-008-0146-7 22 Best, V., Ozmeral, E.J., Shinn-Cunningham, B.G., 2007. Visually-guided attention enhances target 23 identification in a complex auditory scene. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 8, 294 304. 24 doi:10.1007/s10162-007-0073-z 27

1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1 Bronkhorst, A.W., Plomp, R., 1988. The effect of head-induced interaural time and level differences 2 on speech intelligibility in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 83, 1508 1516. 3 Brungart, D.S., 2001. Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two 4 simultaneous talkers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 109, 1101. doi:10.1121/1.1345696 5 Brungart, D.S., Simpson, B.D., Ericson, M.A., Scott, K.R., 2001. Informational and energetic masking 6 effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 2527 2538. 7 doi:10.1121/1.1408946 8 Campbell, J., Sharma, A., 2013. Compensatory changes in cortical resource allocation in adults with 9 hearing loss. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 7, 71. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2013.00071 10 Cardin, V., 2016. Effects of aging and adult-onset hearing loss on cortical auditory regions. Front. 11 Neurosci. 10, 1 12. doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00199 12 Chennu, S., Noreika, V., Gueorguiev, D., Blenkmann, A., Kochen, S., Ibáñez, A., Owen, A.M., 13 Bekinschtein, T.A., 2013. Expectation and attention in hierarchical auditory prediction. J. 14 Neurosci. 33, 11194 205. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0114-13.2013 15 Darwin, C.J., Hukin, R.W., 2000. Effectiveness of spatial cues, prosody, and talker characteristics in 16 selective attention. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 970 977. 17 Darwin, C.J., Hukin, R.W., 1999. Auditory objects of attention: the role of interaural time differences. 18 J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 25, 617 29. 19 Dubno, J.R., Dirks, D.D., Morgan, D.E., 1984. Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech 20 recognition in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 76, 87 96. 21 Ericson, M.A., Brungart, D.S., Brian, D., 2004. Factors that influence intelligibility in multitalker 22 speech displays. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 14, 313 334. 23 Freyman, R.L., Balakrishnan, U., Helfer, K.S., 2004. Effect of number of masking talkers and auditory 24 priming on informational masking in speech recognition. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 2246 2256. 28

1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1 doi:10.1121/1.1689343 2 Gaudrain, E., Grimault, N., Healy, E.W., Béra, J., 2007. Effect of spectral smearing on the perceptual 3 segregation of vowel sequences. Hear. Res. 231, 32 41. 4 Helfer, K.S., Freyman, R.L., 2008. Aging and speech-on-speech masking. Ear Hear. 29, 87 98. 5 doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31815d638b.aging 6 Helfer, K.S., Freyman, R.L., 2005. The role of visual speech cues in reducing energetic and 7 informational masking. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 842 849. doi:10.1121/1.1836832 8 Hilbert, D., 1912. Grundzüge einer Allgemeinen Theorie der linearen Integralgleichungen (Basics of a 9 general theory of linear integral equations). Teubner, Leizpig. 10 Hill, K.T., Miller, L.M., 2010. Auditory attentional control and selection during cocktail party listening. 11 Cereb. Cortex 20, 583 590. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp124 12 Hogan, C.A., Turner, C.W., 1998. High-frequency audibility: Benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. J. 13 Acoust. Soc. Am. 104, 432 441. doi:10.1121/1.423247 14 Holmes, E., Kitterick, P.T., Summerfield, A.Q., 2016. EEG activity evoked in preparation for multi- 15 talker listening by adults and children. Hear. Res. 336, 83 100. 16 doi:10.1016/j.heares.2016.04.007 17 Kidd, G., Arbogast, T.L., Mason, C.R., Gallun, F.J., 2005. The advantage of knowing where to listen. J. 18 Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 3804 3815. doi:10.1121/1.2109187 19 Kitterick, P.T., Bailey, P.J., Summerfield, A.Q., 2010. Benefits of knowing who, where, and when in 20 multi-talker listening. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 2498 2508. doi:10.1121/1.3327507 21 Koravand, A., Jutras, B., Lassonde, M., 2012. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in children with a 22 hearing loss: a pilot study. Int. J. Pediatr. 2012, 250254. doi:10.1155/2012/250254 23 Larson, E., Lee, A.K.C., 2014. Switching auditory attention using spatial and non-spatial features 24 recruits different cortical networks. Neuroimage 84, 681 687. 29

1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.09.061 2 Lee, A.K.C., Rajaram, S., Xia, J., Bharadwaj, H., Larson, E., Hämäläinen, M.S., Shinn-Cunningham, B.G., 3 2013. Auditory selective attention reveals preparatory activity in different cortical regions for 4 selection based on source location and source pitch. Front. Neurosci. 6, 1 9. 5 doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00190 6 Lorenzi, C., Gilbert, G., Carn, H., Garnier, S., Moore, B.C.J., 2006. Speech perception problems of the 7 hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 8 103, 18866 9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0607364103 9 Maris, E., Oostenveld, R., 2007. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J. Neurosci. 10 Methods 164, 177 190. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024 11 Moore, B.C.J., 2008. The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and 12 speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 13 9, 399 406. doi:10.1007/s10162-008-0143-x 14 Moore, B.C.J., 1998. Cochlear Hearing Loss. Whurr Publishers Ltd., London. 15 Moore, T.J., 1981. Voice communication jamming research, in: AGARD Conference Proceedings 331: 16 Aural Communication in Aviation. Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France, p. 2:1-2:6. 17 Müller, N., Weisz, N., 2012. Lateralized auditory cortical alpha band activity and interregional 18 connectivity pattern reflect anticipation of target sounds. Cereb. Cortex 22, 1604 1613. 19 doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr232 20 Neher, T., Behrens, T., Carlile, S., Jin, C., Kragelund, L., Petersen, A.S., Schaik, A. Van, 2009. Benefit 21 from spatial separation of multiple talkers in bilateral hearing-aid users: Effects of hearing loss, 22 age, and cognition. Int. J. Audiol. 48, 758 774. doi:10.3109/14992020903079332 23 O Sullivan, J.A., Power, A.J., Mesgarani, N., Rajaram, S., Foxe, J.J., Shinn-Cunningham, B.G., Slaney, 24 M., Shamma, S.A., Lalor, E.C., 2014. Attentional selection in a cocktail party environment can 30

1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1 be decoded from single-trial EEG. Cereb. Cortex 1 10. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht355 2 Oates, P.A., Kurtzberg, D., Stapells, D.R., 2002. Effects of Sensorineural Hearing Loss on Cortical 3 Event-Related Potential and Behavioral Measures of Speech-Sound Processing. Ear Hear. 23, 4 399 415. doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000034777.12562.31 5 Pasinski, A.C., Mcauley, J.D., Snyder, J.S., 2016. How modality specific is processing of auditory and 6 visual rhythms? Psychophysiology 53, 198 208. doi:10.1111/psyp.12559 7 Peelle, J.E., Troiani, V., Grossman, M., Wingfield, A., 2011. Hearing loss in older adults affects neural 8 systems supporting speech comprehension. J. Neurosci. 31, 12638 12643. 9 doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2559-11.2011 10 Posner, M.I., Rothbart, M.K., Tang, Y.Y., 2015. Enhancing attention through training. Curr. Opin. 11 Behav. Sci. 4, 1 5. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.12.008 12 Robertson, I.H., Ward, T., Ridgeway, V., 1996. The structure of normal human attention: The Test of 13 Everyday Attention. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2, 525 534. doi:10.1017/s1355617700001697 14 Rockstroh, B., Müller, M., Wagner, M., Cohen, R., Elbert, T., 1993. Probing the nature of the CNV. 15 Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 87, 235 241. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(93)90023-o 16 Ruchkin, D.S., McCalley, M.G., Glaser, E.M., 1977. Event Related Potentials and Time Estimation. 17 Psychophysiology. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1977.tb01311.x 18 Segalowitz, S.J., Davies, P.L., 2004. Charting the maturation of the frontal lobe: An 19 electrophysiological strategy. Brain Cogn. 55, 116 133. doi:10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00283-5 20 Shafiro, V., Gygi, B., 2007. Perceiving the speech of multiple concurrent talkers in a combined 21 divided and selective attention task. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122, EL229-35. doi:10.1121/1.2806174 22 Tecce, J.J., Scheff, N.M., 1969. Attention Reduction and Suppressed Direct-Current Potentials in the 23 Human Brain. Science (80). 164, 331 333. doi:10.2307/1726757 24 Travis, F., Tecce, J.J., 1998. Effects of distracting stimuli on CNV amplitude and reaction time. Int. J. 31

1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1 Psychophysiol. 31, 45 50. doi:10.1016/s0167-8760(98)00037-3 2 Voisin, J., Bidet-Caulet, A., Bertrand, O., Fonlupt, P., 2006. Listening in silence activates auditory 3 areas: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J. Neurosci. 26, 273 278. 4 doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2967-05.2006 5 Walter, W.G., Cooper, R., Aldridge, V.J., McCallum, W.C., Winter, A.L., 1964. Contingent negative 6 variation: An electric sign of sensori-motor association and expectancy in the human brain. 7 Nature 203, 380 384. doi:10.1038/203380a0 8 Wöstmann, M., Schröger, E., Obleser, J., 2015. Acoustic detail guides attention allocation in a 9 selective listening task. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 27, 988 1000. doi:10.1162/jocn 32

1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1 Figure Captions 2 3 Fig. 1. Average pure-tone audiometric thresholds (db HL) for hearing-impaired (HI; N = 14) and 4 normally-hearing (NH; N = 24) children, plotted separately for the left (A) and right (B) ears. Grey 5 dashed lines show thresholds for individual hearing-impaired participants and the black solid lines 6 show mean thresholds across HI (diamonds) and NH (circles) participants. 7 8 Fig. 2. (A) Layout of loudspeakers (dark grey squares) and visual display unit (light grey rectangle) 9 relative to a participant's head. Visual cues for location (B,C) and gender (D,E). A visual composite 10 stimulus (F) was created by overlaying the four visual cues. 11 12 Fig. 3. Schematic showing the trial structure in the test condition (A) and the control condition (B). 13 Stimuli for an example trial are displayed below, with an example of the visual stimuli (left; attend- 14 left trial), acoustical stimuli (centre) and response buttons (right). 15 16 Fig. 4. Schematic of EEG analysis pipeline. An example is provided for the comparison between the 17 test and control conditions. (A) EEG data were pre-processed and averaged across trials, producing 18 time-locked event-related potentials (ERPs) at each electrode for each participant. (B) Spatio- 19 temporal cluster-based permutation analysis was used to extract clusters of electrodes and time 20 points that differed significantly between conditions. An example is shown, in which the scalp map 21 shows the electrodes that contributed to the cluster (red circles), the graph illustrates ERPs at those 22 electrodes, and the dashed box on the graph indicates the time window of each cluster. Time on the 23 x-axis is relative to the onset of the visual cues. (C) For each cluster, a bootstrapped null distribution 24 was assembled by selecting, with replacement, samples of NH children of equal size to the 33

1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1 comparison group of HI children. For each sample, the average cluster magnitude was calculated as 2 the difference in amplitude between conditions, averaged across the electrodes and time points that 3 contributed to the cluster. (D) The average cluster magnitude in HI children was compared to the 4 bootstrapped distribution from NH children in a two-tailed test. 5 6 Fig. 5. Mean percentage of trials in which participants correctly identified the colour-number 7 combination spoken by the target talker in the test condition. Separate bars illustrate the results for 8 normally-hearing children (NH; N = 24), hearing-impaired children listening unaided (HI U ; N = 14), 9 and hearing-impaired children listening aided (HI U ; N = 10). Error bars show ±1 standard error of the 10 mean. 11 12 Fig. 6. Results from Spatio-temporal cluster-based permutation analyses in normally-hearing (NH) 13 children for Location (A D) and Gender (E F) trials. (A and E) Coloured rectangles indicate the time- 14 span of significant (p < 0.05) clusters of activity. Time on the x-axis is relative to the onset of the 15 visual cues. Rows on the y-axis show separate significant clusters. For clusters plotted as red 16 rectangles, the average amplitude, over all space-by-time points in the cluster, was more positive in 17 the test condition than the control condition. For clusters plotted as blue rectangles, the average 18 amplitude was more negative in the test condition than the control condition. Further information 19 about each cluster is displayed in (B D and F). For each cluster, the topographical map shows the 20 average topography across the time-span of the cluster and black circles superimposed on the 21 topographical map show electrodes that contributed to the cluster. The graph shows ERPs averaged 22 across the electrodes that contributed to the cluster and the dashed grey rectangle indicates the 23 time-span of the cluster. 24 25 Fig. 7. Cluster size differed between normally-hearing (NH; N = 24) and hearing-impaired children 34

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 1 (HI U ; N = 14) for the clusters that occurred during location trials (A), but not for the cluster that 2 occurred during gender trials (B). For Clusters 2N and 2P, we observed similar results when 3 comparing NH children with the sub-set of hearing-impaired children who completed the task with 4 their hearing aids (HI A ; N = 10). Error bars for HI U and HI A children show 95% confidence intervals for 5 each group. Error bars for NH children show 95% confidence intervals from the bootstrapped null 6 distribution. Brackets above each cluster indicate whether there was a significant difference 7 between the groups (* p < 0.050; ** p < 0.010; *** p < 0.001; n.s. not significant). The time window 8 of the cluster and the electrodes which contributed are displayed above each cluster. 9 10 Fig. 8. Results from Spatio-temporal cluster-based permutation analyses in hearing-impaired 11 children (listening unaided; HI U group) for Location (A) and Gender (B C) trials. (A and B) Coloured 12 rectangles indicate the time-span of significant (p < 0.05) clusters of activity. Time on the x-axis is 13 relative to the onset of the visual cues. Rows on the y-axis show separate significant clusters. No 14 significant clusters were found for location trials. For clusters plotted as blue rectangles, the average 15 amplitude was more negative in the test condition than the control condition. Further information 16 about each cluster is displayed in (C). The topographical map shows the average topography across 17 the time-span of the cluster and black circles superimposed on the topographical map show 18 electrodes that contributed to the cluster. The graph shows ERPs averaged across the electrodes 19 that contributed to the cluster and the dashed grey rectangle indicates the time-span of the cluster. 20 (D) Cluster size did not differ signfiicantly between normally-hearing (NH; N = 24) and hearing- 21 impaired children (HI U ; N = 14) for the cluster that occurred during gender trials. The error bar for 22 HI U children shows the 95% confidence interval. The error bar for NH children shows the 95% 23 confidence interval from the bootstrapped null distribution. 35