Literature DB >> 19702473

Processing expectancy violations during music performance and perception: an ERP study.

Clemens Maidhof1, Niki Vavatzanidis, Wolfgang Prinz, Martina Rieger, Stefan Koelsch.   

Abstract

Musicians are highly trained motor experts with pronounced associations between musical actions and the corresponding auditory effects. However, the importance of auditory feedback for music performance is controversial, and it is unknown how feedback during music performance is processed. The present study investigated the neural mechanisms underlying the processing of auditory feedback manipulations in pianists. To disentangle effects of action-based and perception-based expectations, we compared feedback manipulations during performance to the mere perception of the same stimulus material. In two experiments, pianists performed bimanually sequences on a piano, while at random positions, the auditory feedback of single notes was manipulated, thereby creating a mismatch between an expected and actually perceived action effect (action condition). In addition, pianists listened to tone sequences containing the same manipulations (perception condition). The manipulations in the perception condition were either task-relevant (Experiment 1) or task-irrelevant (Experiment 2). In action and perception conditions, event-related potentials elicited by manipulated tones showed an early fronto-central negativity around 200 msec, presumably reflecting a feedback ERN/N200, followed by a positive deflection (P3a). The early negativity was more pronounced during the action compared to the perception condition. This shows that during performance, the intention to produce specific auditory effects leads to stronger expectancies than the expectancies built up during music perception.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19702473     DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21332

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci        ISSN: 0898-929X            Impact factor:   3.225


  23 in total

1.  Effects of voice harmonic complexity on ERP responses to pitch-shifted auditory feedback.

Authors:  Roozbeh Behroozmand; Oleg Korzyukov; Charles R Larson
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  "Deafness" effects in detecting alterations to auditory feedback during sequence production.

Authors:  Peter Q Pfordresher
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2013-01-24

3.  Role of auditory feedback in the control of successive keystrokes during piano playing.

Authors:  Shinichi Furuya; John F Soechting
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-06-03       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Musical experts recruit action-related neural structures in harmonic anomaly detection: evidence for embodied cognition in expertise.

Authors:  Jason Sherwin; Paul Sajda
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 2.310

5.  Cingulate and cerebellar beta oscillations are engaged in the acquisition of auditory-motor sequences.

Authors:  María Herrojo Ruiz; Burkhard Maess; Eckart Altenmüller; Gabriel Curio; Vadim V Nikulin
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Dopamine neurons encode performance error in singing birds.

Authors:  Vikram Gadagkar; Pavel A Puzerey; Ruidong Chen; Eliza Baird-Daniel; Alexander R Farhang; Jesse H Goldberg
Journal:  Science       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Error-dependent modulation of speech-induced auditory suppression for pitch-shifted voice feedback.

Authors:  Roozbeh Behroozmand; Charles R Larson
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2011-06-06       Impact factor: 3.288

8.  Toward a neural basis of music perception - a review and updated model.

Authors:  Stefan Koelsch
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2011-06-09

9.  Soldiers and marksmen under fire: monitoring performance with neural correlates of small arms fire localization.

Authors:  Jason Sherwin; Jeremy Gaston
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Predictive error detection in pianists: a combined ERP and motion capture study.

Authors:  Clemens Maidhof; Anni Pitkäniemi; Mari Tervaniemi
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-26       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.