Literature DB >> 28225736

Effects of Long-Term Musical Training on Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials.

Carolyn J Brown1, Eun-Kyung Jeon, Virginia Driscoll, Bruna Mussoi, Shruti Balvalli Deshpande, Kate Gfeller, Paul J Abbas.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Evidence suggests that musicians, as a group, have superior frequency resolution abilities when compared with nonmusicians. It is possible to assess auditory discrimination using either behavioral or electrophysiologic methods. The purpose of this study was to determine if the acoustic change complex (ACC) is sensitive enough to reflect the differences in spectral processing exhibited by musicians and nonmusicians.
DESIGN: Twenty individuals (10 musicians and 10 nonmusicians) participated in this study. Pitch and spectral ripple discrimination were assessed using both behavioral and electrophysiologic methods. Behavioral measures were obtained using a standard three interval, forced choice procedure. The ACC was recorded and used as an objective (i.e., nonbehavioral) measure of discrimination between two auditory signals. The same stimuli were used for both psychophysical and electrophysiologic testing.
RESULTS: As a group, musicians were able to detect smaller changes in pitch than nonmusician. They also were able to detect a shift in the position of the peaks and valleys in a ripple noise stimulus at higher ripple densities than non-musicians. ACC responses recorded from musicians were larger than those recorded from non-musicians when the amplitude of the ACC response was normalized to the amplitude of the onset response in each stimulus pair. Visual detection thresholds derived from the evoked potential data were better for musicians than non-musicians regardless of whether the task was discrimination of musical pitch or detection of a change in the frequency spectrum of the ripple noise stimuli. Behavioral measures of discrimination were generally more sensitive than the electrophysiologic measures; however, the two metrics were correlated.
CONCLUSIONS: Perhaps as a result of extensive training, musicians are better able to discriminate spectrally complex acoustic signals than nonmusicians. Those differences are evident not only in perceptual/behavioral tests but also in electrophysiologic measures of neural response at the level of the auditory cortex. While these results are based on observations made from normal-hearing listeners, they suggest that the ACC may provide a non-behavioral method of assessing auditory discrimination and as a result might prove useful in future studies that explore the efficacy of participation in a musically based, auditory training program perhaps geared toward pediatric or hearing-impaired listeners.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28225736      PMCID: PMC5325201          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000375

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  47 in total

1.  Central auditory plasticity: changes in the N1-P2 complex after speech-sound training.

Authors:  K Tremblay; N Kraus; T McGee; C Ponton; B Otis
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Auditory training induces asymmetrical changes in cortical neural activity.

Authors:  Kelly L Tremblay; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Pitch discrimination accuracy in musicians vs nonmusicians: an event-related potential and behavioral study.

Authors:  Mari Tervaniemi; Viola Just; Stefan Koelsch; Andreas Widmann; Erich Schröger
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-11-13       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  The neural representation of consonant-vowel transitions in adults who wear hearing AIDS.

Authors:  Kelly L Tremblay; Laura Kalstein; Cuttis J Billings; Pamela E Souza
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-09

5.  One year of musical training affects development of auditory cortical-evoked fields in young children.

Authors:  Takako Fujioka; Bernhard Ross; Ryusuke Kakigi; Christo Pantev; Laurel J Trainor
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2006-09-07       Impact factor: 13.501

Review 6.  Perceptual learning and auditory training in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2007-09

7.  MUSIC APPRECIATION AND TRAINING FOR COCHLEAR IMPLANT RECIPIENTS: A REVIEW.

Authors:  Valerie Looi; Kate Gfeller; Virginia Driscoll
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2012-11-19

8.  Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise.

Authors:  Alexandra Parbery-Clark; Erika Skoe; Carrie Lam; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Auditory training alters the physiological detection of stimulus-specific cues in humans.

Authors:  Kelly L Tremblay; Antoine J Shahin; Terence Picton; Bernhard Ross
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-11-22       Impact factor: 3.708

10.  Electrophysiological evidences demonstrating differences in brain functions between nonmusicians and musicians.

Authors:  Li Zhang; Weiwei Peng; Jie Chen; Li Hu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  8 in total

1.  Frequency change detection and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Fawen Zhang; Gabrielle Underwood; Kelli McGuire; Chun Liang; David R Moore; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Speech perception is similar for musicians and non-musicians across a wide range of conditions.

Authors:  Sara M K Madsen; Marton Marschall; Torsten Dau; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Response to Frequency Changes with Varied Magnitude, Rate, and Direction.

Authors:  Bernard M D Vonck; Marc J W Lammers; Marjolijn van der Waals; Gijsbert A van Zanten; Huib Versnel
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-06-05

4.  Changes in Speech-Related Brain Activity During Adaptation to Electro-Acoustic Hearing.

Authors:  Tobias Balkenhol; Elisabeth Wallhäusser-Franke; Nicole Rotter; Jérôme J Servais
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 4.003

5.  Effect of Frequency Response Manipulations on Musical Sound Quality for Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Jonathan Mo; Nicole T Jiam; Mickael L D Deroche; Patpong Jiradejvong; Charles J Limb
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

6.  Musicians do not benefit from differences in fundamental frequency when listening to speech in competing speech backgrounds.

Authors:  Sara M K Madsen; Kelly L Whiteford; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  A Preliminary Study of the Effects of Attentive Music Listening on Cochlear Implant Users' Speech Perception, Quality of Life, and Behavioral and Objective Measures of Frequency Change Detection.

Authors:  Gabrielle M Firestone; Kelli McGuire; Chun Liang; Nanhua Zhang; Chelsea M Blankenship; Jing Xiang; Fawen Zhang
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 8.  Implications of musical practice in central auditory processing: a systematic review.

Authors:  Cinthya Heloisa Braz; Laura Faustino Gonçalves; Karina Mary Paiva; Patricia Haas; Fernanda Soares Aurélio Patatt
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-11-16
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.