| Literature DB >> 22053152 |
David I Leitman1, Pejman Sehatpour, Christina Garidis, Manuel Gomez-Ramirez, Daniel C Javitt.
Abstract
Recognizing emotion is an evolutionary imperative. An early stage of auditory scene analysis involves the perceptual grouping of acoustic features, which can be based on both temporal coincidence and spectral features such as perceived pitch. Perceived pitch, or fundamental frequency (F(0)), is an especially salient cue for differentiating affective intent through speech intonation (prosody). We hypothesized that: (1) simple frequency-modulated tone abstractions, based on the parameters of actual prosodic stimuli, would be reliably classified as representing differing emotional categories; and (2) that such differences would yield significant mismatch negativities (MMNs) - an index of pre-attentive deviance detection within the auditory environment. We constructed a set of FM tones that approximated the F(0) mean and variation of reliably recognized happy and neutral prosodic stimuli. These stimuli were presented to 13 subjects using a passive listening oddball paradigm. We additionally included stimuli with no frequency modulation (FM) and FM tones with identical carrier frequencies but differing modulation depths as control conditions. Following electrophysiological recording, subjects were asked to identify the sounds they heard as happy, sad, angry, or neutral. We observed that FM tones abstracted from happy and no-expression speech stimuli elicited MMNs. Post hoc behavioral testing revealed that subjects reliably identified the FM tones in a consistent manner. Finally, we also observed that FM tones and no-FM tones elicited equivalent MMNs. MMNs to FM tones that differentiate affect suggests that these abstractions may be sufficient to characterize prosodic distinctions, and that these distinctions can be represented in pre-attentive auditory sensory memory.Entities:
Keywords: MMN; auditory; cortex; emotion; frequency modulation; mismatch negativity; speech
Year: 2011 PMID: 22053152 PMCID: PMC3205480 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00096
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Frequency-modulated (FM) tone stimuli profile. Spectrograms of reliably recognized prosodic sentences (“is it eleven o’clock?”) spoken with a happy (A) or no emotional (B) intonation. Pitch differences between stimuli are indicated by fundamental frequency (F0) contour (blue trace) as calculated by TDPSOLA algorithm in PRAAT. Using the F0 mean and SD of these stimuli we created FM analogs of these stimuli [(C,D) blue traces reflect the carrier frequencies (Hz) and modulation depths respectively] whose modulation frequency was held constant at 3 Hz. Control stimulus (E) illustrates the no-FM stimulus and (F) illustrates the second control stimulus: a hybrid of the FM tones (C,D).
Experimental trial blocks.
| Standard tone | Deviant tone | |
|---|---|---|
| (Carrier/modulation depth/modulation Hz) | ||
| 1 | 378/169/3 | 178/23/3 |
| 2 | 178/23/3 | 378/169/3 |
Control conditions in blue.
Contrasts of interest (MMN subtractions).
| Subtraction | DEV taken from block | STD taken from block | DEV stimulus | STD stimulus | Mean (SE) latency @ FZ | Mean (SE) amplitude @ FZ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMD+CMD− | 2 | 1 | 378/169/3 | 378/169/3 | 162.0 (5.9) | −2.5 (0.5)** |
| CMD−CMD+ | 1 | 2 | 178/23/3 | 178/23/3 | 156.0 (6.3) | −1.5 (0.6)* |
| 206.0 (5.7) | −3.1 (0.8)** | |||||
| 162.0 (5.9) | −3.8 (0.6)** | |||||
| 152.4 (7.9) | −3.3 (0.8)** | |||||
| 144.1 (7.3) | −1.0 (0.5) |
Control conditions in blue. *.
Figure 2Stimuli extracted from Happy (left) and No-expression (right) prosodic stimuli. Top panel represents grand average waveforms at electrodes FZ, right (M1) and left (M2) mastoid for both standard (blue) and deviant (red) waveforms for FM tones Bottom row represents grand average waveforms that were re-referenced to average mastoids for statistical comparisons of net amplitude differences between conditions. Bottom panel represents voltage topographies of subtraction waveforms (Note: isotemporal lines extending beyond electrode placement areas is an artifact of topography generation platform).
Figure 3Control condition. FM vs. no-FM. Figure legend follows that of Figure 2.
Figure 4Control condition. Differences in modulation depths. Figure legend follows that of Figure 2.
Figure 5Post recording affective judgments. YY-axis reflects the percentage of 13 subjects that endorsed a particular emotion. X-axis reflects the four stimuli presented. The top label represents the stimulus, below it is what the emotion as endorsed by the majority of subjects.