Literature DB >> 26827809

Distortion products in auditory fMRI research: Measurements and solutions.

Sam Norman-Haignere1, Josh H McDermott2.   

Abstract

Nonlinearities in the cochlea can introduce audio frequencies that are not present in the sound signal entering the ear. Known as distortion products (DPs), these added frequencies complicate the interpretation of auditory experiments. Sound production systems also introduce distortion via nonlinearities, a particular concern for fMRI research because the Sensimetrics earphones widely used for sound presentation are less linear than most high-end audio devices (due to design constraints). Here we describe the acoustic and neural effects of cochlear and earphone distortion in the context of fMRI studies of pitch perception, and discuss how their effects can be minimized with appropriate stimuli and masking noise. The amplitude of cochlear and Sensimetrics earphone DPs were measured for a large collection of harmonic stimuli to assess effects of level, frequency, and waveform amplitude. Cochlear DP amplitudes were highly sensitive to the absolute frequency of the DP, and were most prominent at frequencies below 300 Hz. Cochlear DPs could thus be effectively masked by low-frequency noise, as expected. Earphone DP amplitudes, in contrast, were highly sensitive to both stimulus and DP frequency (due to prominent resonances in the earphone's transfer function), and their levels grew more rapidly with increasing stimulus level than did cochlear DP amplitudes. As a result, earphone DP amplitudes often exceeded those of cochlear DPs. Using fMRI, we found that earphone DPs had a substantial effect on the response of pitch-sensitive cortical regions. In contrast, cochlear DPs had a small effect on cortical fMRI responses that did not reach statistical significance, consistent with their lower amplitudes. Based on these findings, we designed a set of pitch stimuli optimized for identifying pitch-responsive brain regions using fMRI. These stimuli robustly drive pitch-responsive brain regions while producing minimal cochlear and earphone distortion, and will hopefully aid fMRI researchers in avoiding distortion confounds.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26827809      PMCID: PMC4803580          DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  33 in total

1.  Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA).

Authors:  Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.668

2.  Neuromagnetic evidence for a pitch processing center in Heschl's gyrus.

Authors:  K Krumbholz; R D Patterson; A Seither-Preisler; C Lammertmann; B Lütkenhöner
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.357

3.  DETECTABILITY THRESHOLD FOR COMBINATION TONES.

Authors:  R PLOMP
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1965-06       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Temporal dynamics of pitch in human auditory cortex.

Authors:  Alexander Gutschalk; Roy D Patterson; Michael Scherg; Stefan Uppenkamp; André Rupp
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Cortical pitch regions in humans respond primarily to resolved harmonics and are located in specific tonotopic regions of anterior auditory cortex.

Authors:  Sam Norman-Haignere; Nancy Kanwisher; Josh H McDermott
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Pitch, consonance, and harmony.

Authors:  E Terhardt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds.

Authors:  R M Warren
Journal:  Science       Date:  1970-01-23       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Psychophysical measurements relating suppression and combination tones.

Authors:  R V Shannon; T Houtgast
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1980-09       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  The frequency following response (FFR) may reflect pitch-bearing information but is not a direct representation of pitch.

Authors:  Hedwig E Gockel; Robert P Carlyon; Anahita Mehta; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-08-09

10.  Representations of pitch and slow modulation in auditory cortex.

Authors:  Daphne Barker; Christopher J Plack; Deborah A Hall
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2013-10-02
View more
  8 in total

1.  Neural responses to natural and model-matched stimuli reveal distinct computations in primary and nonprimary auditory cortex.

Authors:  Sam V Norman-Haignere; Josh H McDermott
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 8.029

2.  Cortical Correlates of the Auditory Frequency-Following and Onset Responses: EEG and fMRI Evidence.

Authors:  Emily B J Coffey; Gabriella Musacchia; Robert J Zatorre
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-25       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Distinct Representations of Tonotopy and Pitch in Human Auditory Cortex.

Authors:  Emily J Allen; Juraj Mesik; Kendrick N Kay; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 6.709

4.  Rabbits use both spectral and temporal cues to discriminate the fundamental frequency of harmonic complexes with missing fundamentals.

Authors:  Joseph D Wagner; Alice Gelman; Kenneth E Hancock; Yoojin Chung; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Across-species differences in pitch perception are consistent with differences in cochlear filtering.

Authors:  Josh H McDermott; Andrew J King; Kerry Mm Walker; Ray Gonzalez; Joe Z Kang
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 8.140

6.  Decoding Task-Related Functional Brain Imaging Data to Identify Developmental Disorders: The Case of Congenital Amusia.

Authors:  Philippe Albouy; Anne Caclin; Sam V Norman-Haignere; Yohana Lévêque; Isabelle Peretz; Barbara Tillmann; Robert J Zatorre
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 4.677

7.  Diversity in pitch perception revealed by task dependence.

Authors:  Malinda J McPherson; Josh H McDermott
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2017-12-11

8.  Harmonicity aids hearing in noise.

Authors:  Malinda J McPherson; River C Grace; Josh H McDermott
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 2.157

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.