Literature DB >> 17435596

The human 'pitch center' responds differently to iterated noise and Huggins pitch.

Deborah A Hall1, Christopher J Plack.   

Abstract

A magnetoencephalographic marker for pitch analysis (the pitch onset response) has been reported for different types of pitch-evoking stimuli, irrespective of whether the acoustic cues for pitch are monaurally or binaurally produced. It is claimed that the pitch onset response reflects a common cortical representation for pitch, putatively in lateral Heschl's gyrus. The result of this functional MRI study sheds doubt on this assertion. We report a direct comparison between iterated ripple noise and Huggins pitch in which we reveal a different pattern of auditory cortical activation associated with each pitch stimulus, even when individual variability in structure-function relations is accounted for. Our results suggest it may be premature to assume that lateral Heschl's gyrus is a universal pitch center.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17435596     DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e32802b70ce

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroreport        ISSN: 0959-4965            Impact factor:   1.837


  13 in total

1.  Cortical pitch regions in humans respond primarily to resolved harmonics and are located in specific tonotopic regions of anterior auditory cortex.

Authors:  Sam Norman-Haignere; Nancy Kanwisher; Josh H McDermott
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Cortical representation of natural complex sounds: effects of acoustic features and auditory object category.

Authors:  Amber M Leaver; Josef P Rauschecker
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-06-02       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Depth electrode recordings show double dissociation between pitch processing in lateral Heschl's gyrus and sound onset processing in medial Heschl's gyrus.

Authors:  Marc Schönwiesner; Robert J Zatorre
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-01-31       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Perception and cortical neural coding of harmonic fusion in ferrets.

Authors:  Sridhar Kalluri; Didier A Depireux; Shihab A Shamma
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  The frequency following response (FFR) may reflect pitch-bearing information but is not a direct representation of pitch.

Authors:  Hedwig E Gockel; Robert P Carlyon; Anahita Mehta; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-08-09

Review 6.  Cortical encoding of pitch: recent results and open questions.

Authors:  Kerry M M Walker; Jennifer K Bizley; Andrew J King; Jan W H Schnupp
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-05-10       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Functional anatomy of the masking level difference, an fMRI study.

Authors:  David S Wack; Jennifer L Cox; Claudiu V Schirda; Christopher R Magnano; Joan E Sussman; Donald Henderson; Robert F Burkard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Auditory cortex represents both pitch judgments and the corresponding acoustic cues.

Authors:  Jennifer K Bizley; Kerry M M Walker; Fernando R Nodal; Andrew J King; Jan W H Schnupp
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 10.834

9.  Representations of pitch and slow modulation in auditory cortex.

Authors:  Daphne Barker; Christopher J Plack; Deborah A Hall
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2013-10-02

10.  Pitch processing sites in the human auditory brain.

Authors:  Deborah A Hall; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2008-07-04       Impact factor: 5.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.