Behavioral detection of spatial stimuli is reflected in auditory cortical dynamics.

Apperception and Cortical Dynamics, Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Neurology & Clinical Neurophysiology 02/2004; 2004:50.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We studied the cortical processing of spatial stimuli by magnetoencephalographic (MEG) measurements using broadband noise bursts presented from eight sound source directions in the horizontal plane. The stimuli were individually created for each subject by using three-dimensional (3D) sound techniques. The subjects carried out a behavioral task where their accuracy for localizing the 3D stimuli was established. We found that the auditory N100m response was sensitive to the sound source direction, exhibiting contralaterally more preponderant responses in both the left and the right hemisphere. Generally, responses were more prominent in the right hemisphere. The behavioral performance of the subjects correlated positively with N100m amplitude organization, showing that the dynamics of auditory cortex predict behavioral sound detection.


Available from: Patrick May, Jun 02, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current review constitutes the first comprehensive look at the possibility that the mismatch negativity (MMN, the deflection of the auditory ERP/ERF elicited by stimulus change) might be generated by so-called fresh-afferent neuronal activity. This possibility has been repeatedly ruled out for the past 30 years, with the prevailing theoretical accounts relying on a memory-based explanation instead. We propose that the MMN is, in essence, a latency- and amplitude-modulated expression of the auditory N1 response, generated by fresh-afferent activity of cortical neurons that are under nonuniform levels of adaptation.
    Psychophysiology 08/2009; 47(1):66-122. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00856.x · 3.18 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Difference in the processing of motion and static sounds in the human cortex was studied by electroencephalography with subjects performing an active discrimination task. Sound bursts were presented in the acoustic free-field between 47° to the left and 47° to the right under three different stimulus conditions: (i) static, (ii) leftward motion, and (iii) rightward motion. In an active oddball design, subject was asked to detect target stimuli which were randomly embedded within a stream of frequently occurring non-target events (i.e. ‘standards’) and rare non-target stimuli (i.e. ‘deviants’). The respective acoustic stimuli were presented in blocks with each stimulus type presented in either of three stimulus conditions: as target, as non-target, or as standard. The analysis focussed on the event related potentials evoked by the different stimulus types under the respective standard condition. Same as in previous studies, all three different acoustic stimuli elicited the obligatory P1/N1/P2 complex in the range of 50-200 ms. However, comparisons of ERPs elicited by static stimuli and both kinds of motion stimuli yielded differences as early as ∼100 ms after stimulus-onset, i.e. at the level of the exogenous N1 and P2 components. Differences in signal amplitudes were also found in a time window 300-400 ms (‘d300-400 ms’ component in ‘motion-minus-static’ difference wave). For motion stimuli, the N1 amplitudes were larger over the hemisphere contralateral to the origin of motion, while for static stimuli N1 amplitudes over both hemispheres were in the same range. Contrary to the N1 component, the ERP in the ‘d300-400 ms’ time period showed stronger responses over the hemisphere contralateral to motion termination, with the static stimuli again yielding equal bilateral amplitudes. For the P2 component a motion-specific effect with larger signal amplitudes over the left hemisphere was found compared to static stimuli.
    Neuropsychologia 03/2013; 51(7). DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.03.001 · 3.45 Impact Factor