Literature DB >> 19653761

Adaptation reveals multiple levels of representation in auditory stream segregation.

Joel S Snyder1, Olivia L Carter, Erin E Hannon, Claude Alain.   

Abstract

When presented with alternating low and high tones, listeners are more likely to perceive 2 separate streams of tones ("streaming") than a single coherent stream when the frequency separation (Deltaf) between tones is greater and the number of tone presentations is greater ("buildup"). However, the same large-Deltaf sequence reduces streaming for subsequent patterns presented after a gap of up to several seconds. Buildup occurs at a level of neural representation with sharp frequency tuning. The authors used adaptation to demonstrate that the contextual effect of prior Deltaf arose from a representation with broad frequency tuning, unlike buildup. Separate adaptation did not occur in a representation of Deltaf independent of frequency range, suggesting that any frequency-shift detectors undergoing adaptation are also frequency specific. A separate effect of prior perception was observed, dissociating stimulus-related (i.e., Deltaf) and perception-related (i.e., 1 stream vs. 2 streams) adaptation. Viewing a visual analogue to auditory streaming had no effect on subsequent perception of streaming, suggesting adaptation in auditory-specific brain circuits. These results, along with previous findings on buildup, suggest that processing in at least 3 levels of auditory neural representation underlies segregation and formation of auditory streams.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19653761      PMCID: PMC2726626          DOI: 10.1037/a0012741

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  41 in total

1.  Local factors determine the stabilization of monocular ambiguous and binocular rivalry stimuli.

Authors:  Xiangchuan Chen; Sheng He
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2004-06-08       Impact factor: 10.834

2.  Effects of location, frequency region, and time course of selective attention on auditory scene analysis.

Authors:  Rhodri Cusack; John Deeks; Genevieve Aikman; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Temporally nonadjacent nonlinguistic sounds affect speech categorization.

Authors:  Lori L Holt
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2005-04

4.  Effects of attention on neuroelectric correlates of auditory stream segregation.

Authors:  Joel S Snyder; Claude Alain; Terence W Picton
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  Sequential auditory scene analysis is preserved in normal aging adults.

Authors:  Joel S Snyder; Claude Alain
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2006-03-31       Impact factor: 5.357

6.  Responses of inferior colliculus neurons to double harmonic tones.

Authors:  Donal G Sinex; Hongzhe Li
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-10-03       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Effects of context on auditory stream segregation.

Authors:  Joel S Snyder; Olivia L Carter; Suh-Kyung Lee; Erin E Hannon; Claude Alain
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Time decay of auditory stream biasing.

Authors:  M W Beauvois; R Meddis
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1997-01

9.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

10.  Phonetic trading relations and context effects: new experimental evidence for a speech mode of perception.

Authors:  B H Repp
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1982-07       Impact factor: 17.737

View more
  22 in total

1.  Recalibration of the auditory continuity illusion: sensory and decisional effects.

Authors:  Lars Riecke; Christophe Micheyl; Mieke Vanbussel; Claudia S Schreiner; Daniel Mendelsohn; Elia Formisano
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  The initial phase of auditory and visual scene analysis.

Authors:  Jean-Michel Hupé; Daniel Pressnitzer
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  The what, where and how of auditory-object perception.

Authors:  Jennifer K Bizley; Yale E Cohen
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 34.870

4.  The effect of visual cues on auditory stream segregation in musicians and non-musicians.

Authors:  Jeremy Marozeau; Hamish Innes-Brown; David B Grayden; Anthony N Burkitt; Peter J Blamey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Auditory stream segregation impairments in schizophrenia.

Authors:  David M Weintraub; Erin M Ramage; Griffin Sutton; Erik Ringdahl; Aaron Boren; Amanda C Pasinski; Nick Thaler; Michael Haderlie; Daniel N Allen; Joel S Snyder
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 4.016

6.  Modulations of neural activity in auditory streaming caused by spectral and temporal alternation in subsequent stimuli: a magnetoencephalographic study.

Authors:  Ivan Chakalov; Rossitza Draganova; Andreas Wollbrink; Hubert Preissl; Christo Pantev
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 3.288

7.  Onset rivalry: the initial dominance phase is independent of ongoing perceptual alternations.

Authors:  Jody Stanley; Jason D Forte; Patrick Cavanagh; Olivia Carter
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Attention, awareness, and the perception of auditory scenes.

Authors:  Joel S Snyder; Melissa K Gregg; David M Weintraub; Claude Alain
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-02-07

9.  Modelling the emergence and dynamics of perceptual organisation in auditory streaming.

Authors:  Robert W Mill; Tamás M Bőhm; Alexandra Bendixen; István Winkler; Susan L Denham
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Influence of rhythmic grouping on duration perception: a novel auditory illusion.

Authors:  Eveline Geiser; John D E Gabrieli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.