| Literature DB >> 27853313 |
Natàlia Gorina-Careta1,2,3, Katarzyna Zarnowiec1,2, Jordi Costa-Faidella1,2, Carles Escera1,2,3.
Abstract
The encoding of temporal regularities is a critical property of the auditory system, as short-term neural representations of environmental statistics serve to auditory object formation and detection of potentially relevant novel stimuli. A putative neural mechanism underlying regularity encoding is repetition suppression, the reduction of neural activity to repeated stimulation. Although repetitive stimulation per se has shown to reduce auditory neural activity in animal cortical and subcortical levels and in the human cerebral cortex, other factors such as timing may influence the encoding of statistical regularities. This study was set out to investigate whether temporal predictability in the ongoing auditory input modulates repetition suppression in subcortical stages of the auditory processing hierarchy. Human auditory frequency-following responses (FFR) were recorded to a repeating consonant-vowel stimuli (/wa/) delivered in temporally predictable and unpredictable conditions. FFR amplitude was attenuated by repetition independently of temporal predictability, yet we observed an accentuated suppression when the incoming stimulation was temporally predictable. These findings support the view that regularity encoding spans across the auditory hierarchy and point to temporal predictability as a modulatory factor of regularity encoding in early stages of the auditory pathway.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27853313 PMCID: PMC5112601 DOI: 10.1038/srep37405
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Stimulus waveform and Frequency Following Responses elicited in the two temporal conditions.
(a) The acoustic waveform of the stimulus/wa/. The envelope of the stimulus is highlighted in blue. The formant transition region and the vowel steady–state region are bracketed (a.u. = arbitrary units) (b) Grand-average FFR response recorded at Cz of all participants in the predictable (black) and unpredictable (red) timing conditions recorded to the/wa/stimuli presented against a continuous babbling background noise. As can be seen here, the envelope of the stimulus (a, blue) was preserved in the response (b) of both timing conditions. This is evidenced by the framed areas, which include the same number of cycles.
Figure 2FFR amplitude spectrum and mean amplitude of the fundamental frequency peak.
(a) FFR amplitude spectrum of the steady–state part of the response in the Predictable (black) and Unpredictable (red) timing conditions. (b) Mean amplitude of the F0 (100 Hz), computed over a 20 Hz window around the peak, is represented for both conditions. The Unpredictable timing condition yielded significantly larger amplitudes than the Predictable condition. Pred = Predictable; Unpred = Unpredictable. (c) Mean spectral amplitude of the F0 at ten consecutive 100–epoch sub–averages in both Predictable (black) and Unpredictable (red) timing conditions. Decreased amplitude was observed in the Predictable condition compared to the Unpredictable timing condition. Also, a decrease in amplitude was observed as the number of previous repetitions increases in both timing conditions. Error bars represent ±1 SEM. Statistically significant comparisons are marked with one (p < 0.05) or two (p < 0.01) asterisks.
Figure 3Neural Pitch Strength to the pitch of the stimulus waveform in both timing conditions.
(a) Pitch strength Fisher transformed correlation values in the Predictable (black) and Unpredictable (red) timing conditions. Increased phase–locking to the stimulus F0 was observed on the Predictable compared to the Unpredictable timing condition. Pred = Predictable; Unpred = Unpredictable (b) Pitch strength Fisher transformed correlation values at ten consecutive 100–epoch sub–averages in both Predictable (black) and Unpredictable (red) timing conditions. Different trends can be distinguished for both conditions as the number of repetitions increased. Error bars represent ±1 SEM. Statistically significant comparisons are marked with one (p < 0.05) or two (p < 0.01) asterisks.