Literature DB >> 23076114

Electrical neuroimaging during auditory motion aftereffects reveals that auditory motion processing is motion sensitive but not direction selective.

David A Magezi1, Karin A Buetler, Leila Chouiter, Jean-Marie Annoni, Lucas Spierer.   

Abstract

Following prolonged exposure to adaptor sounds moving in a single direction, participants may perceive stationary-probe sounds as moving in the opposite direction [direction-selective auditory motion aftereffect (aMAE)] and be less sensitive to motion of any probe sounds that are actually moving (motion-sensitive aMAE). The neural mechanisms of aMAEs, and notably whether they are due to adaptation of direction-selective motion detectors, as found in vision, is presently unknown and would provide critical insight into auditory motion processing. We measured human behavioral responses and auditory evoked potentials to probe sounds following four types of moving-adaptor sounds: leftward and rightward unidirectional, bidirectional, and stationary. Behavioral data replicated both direction-selective and motion-sensitive aMAEs. Electrical neuroimaging analyses of auditory evoked potentials to stationary probes revealed no significant difference in either global field power (GFP) or scalp topography between leftward and rightward conditions, suggesting that aMAEs are not based on adaptation of direction-selective motion detectors. By contrast, the bidirectional and stationary conditions differed significantly in the stationary-probe GFP at 200 ms poststimulus onset without concomitant topographic modulation, indicative of a difference in the response strength between statistically indistinguishable intracranial generators. The magnitude of this GFP difference was positively correlated with the magnitude of the motion-sensitive aMAE, supporting the functional relevance of the neurophysiological measures. Electrical source estimations revealed that the GFP difference followed from a modulation of activity in predominantly right hemisphere frontal-temporal-parietal brain regions previously implicated in auditory motion processing. Our collective results suggest that auditory motion processing relies on motion-sensitive, but, in contrast to vision, non-direction-selective mechanisms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23076114     DOI: 10.1152/jn.00625.2012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  4 in total

1.  Neural binaural sensitivity at high sound speeds: Single cell responses in cat midbrain to fast-changing interaural time differences of broadband sounds.

Authors:  Philip X Joris
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Sound frequency affects the auditory motion-onset response in humans.

Authors:  Mikaella Sarrou; Pia Marlena Schmitz; Nicole Hamm; Rudolf Rübsamen
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-07-11       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Stimulus-specific adaptation to visual but not auditory motion direction in the barn owl's optic tectum.

Authors:  Dante F Wasmuht; Jose L Pena; Yoram Gutfreund
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 3.386

4.  Discrimination contours for moving sounds reveal duration and distance cues dominate auditory speed perception.

Authors:  Tom C A Freeman; Johahn Leung; Ella Wufong; Emily Orchard-Mills; Simon Carlile; David Alais
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.