Literature DB >> 18343493

Relative influence of musical and linguistic experience on early cortical processing of pitch contours.

Bharath Chandrasekaran1, Ananthanarayan Krishnan, Jackson T Gandour.   

Abstract

To assess domain specificity of experience-dependent pitch representation we evaluated the mismatch negativity (MMN) and discrimination judgments of English musicians, English nonmusicians, and native Chinese for pitch contours presented in a nonspeech context using a passive oddball paradigm. Stimuli consisted of homologues of Mandarin high rising (T2) and high level (T1) tones, and a linear rising ramp (T2L). One condition involved a between-category contrast (T1/T2), the other, a within-category contrast (T2L/T2). Irrespective of condition, musicians and Chinese showed larger MMN responses than nonmusicians; Chinese larger than musicians. Chinese, however, were less accurate than nonnatives in overt discrimination of T2L and T2. Taken together, these findings suggest that experience-dependent effects to pitch contours are domain-general and not driven by linguistic categories. Yet specific differences in long-term experience in pitch processing between domains (music vs. language) may lead to gradations in cortical plasticity to pitch contours.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18343493      PMCID: PMC2670545          DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.02.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Lang        ISSN: 0093-934X            Impact factor:   2.381


  42 in total

1.  Superior pre-attentive auditory processing in musicians.

Authors:  S Koelsch; E Schröger; M Tervaniemi
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  1999-04-26       Impact factor: 1.837

2.  The role of the envelope in processing iterated rippled noise.

Authors:  W A Yost; R Patterson; S Sheft
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 3.  The neural basis of perceptual learning.

Authors:  C D Gilbert; M Sigman; R E Crist
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2001-09-13       Impact factor: 17.173

4.  Encoding of learned importance of sound by magnitude of representational area in primary auditory cortex.

Authors:  Richard G Rutkowski; Norman M Weinberger
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-09-08       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Auditory evoked magnetic fields in relation to iterated rippled noise.

Authors:  Yoshiharu Soeta; Seiji Nakagawa; Mitsuo Tonoike
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Encoding of pitch in the human brainstem is sensitive to language experience.

Authors:  Ananthanarayan Krishnan; Yisheng Xu; Jackson Gandour; Peter Cariani
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2005-09

7.  Effects of musical experience on different components of MEG responses elicited by sequential piano-tones and chords.

Authors:  Shinya Kuriki; Satoshi Kanda; Yoshihiro Hirata
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-04-12       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Influence of musical training on pitch processing: event-related brain potential studies of adults and children.

Authors:  Sylvain Moreno; Mireille Besson
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.691

9.  Musician children detect pitch violations in both music and language better than nonmusician children: behavioral and electrophysiological approaches.

Authors:  Cyrille Magne; Daniele Schön; Mireille Besson
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.225

10.  A time domain description for the pitch strength of iterated rippled noise.

Authors:  W A Yost; R Patterson; S Sheft
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  46 in total

1.  Individual variability in cue-weighting and lexical tone learning.

Authors:  Bharath Chandrasekaran; Padma D Sampath; Patrick C M Wong
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Musicians and tone-language speakers share enhanced brainstem encoding but not perceptual benefits for musical pitch.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Jackson T Gandour; Ananthanarayan Krishnan
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 2.310

3.  Effect of musical training on static and dynamic measures of spectral-pattern discrimination.

Authors:  Stanley Sheft; Kirsten Smayda; Valeriy Shafiro; W Todd Maddox; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Proc Meet Acoust       Date:  2013-06-02

4.  Reading acquisition reorganizes the phonological awareness network only in alphabetic writing systems.

Authors:  Christine Brennan; Fan Cao; Nicole Pedroarena-Leal; Chris McNorgan; James R Booth
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  The ability to glimpse dynamic pitch in noise by younger and older listeners.

Authors:  Jing Shen; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Language experience-dependent advantage in pitch representation in the auditory cortex is limited to favorable signal-to-noise ratios.

Authors:  Chandan H Suresh; Ananthanarayan Krishnan; Jackson T Gandour
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Brainstem correlates of speech-in-noise perception in children.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Erika Skoe; Bharath Chandrasekaran; Steven Zecker; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  The C957T polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D₂ gene modulates domain-general category learning.

Authors:  Zilong Xie; W Todd Maddox; John E McGeary; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 9.  Communication disorders in speakers of tone languages: etiological bases and clinical considerations.

Authors:  Patrick C M Wong; Tyler K Perrachione; Geshri Gunasekera; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Semin Speech Lang       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 1.761

Review 10.  The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity.

Authors:  Bharath Chandrasekaran; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 4.016

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.