Central auditory onset responses, and temporal asymmetries in auditory perception

Phillips, Dennis P.; Hall, Susan E.; Boehnke, Susan E.

doi:10.1016/s0378-5955(02)00393-3

Cited by 139 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also worth noting that neuronal models that compute asynchrony do not compute order (Jeffress 1948), and vice versa (Lewicki and Konishi 1995;Drew and Abbott 2003). Second, supporting the idea that different circuitry underlies relative-timing judgments made at sound onset versus offset, both performance on relative-timing tasks and physiological responses to auditory stimuli differ between these two temporal positions (for behavior, see Raphael 1972;Pastore et al 1982;Pastore 1983;Zera and Green 1993;Phillips et al 2002; for physiology, see Brugge and Merzenich 1973;Pfingst and O'Connor 1981;He et al 1997;Recanzone 2000;He 2002;Takahashi et al 2004). Third, in agreement with the idea that relative-timing circuitry processes each frequency combination separately, performance on asynchrony and order (or related sequence-identification) tasks has been shown to differ depending on the frequencies of the tones (for asynchrony, see Portfors and Wenstrup 1999;Leroy and Wenstrup 2000; for order, see Divenyi and Hirsh 1974;Wier and Green 1975;Kelly and Watson 1986;Barsz 1988;Barsz 1996).…”

Section: Implications For Neural Circuitrymentioning

confidence: 90%

Learning and generalization on asynchrony and order tasks at sound offset: Implications for underlying neural circuitry

Mossbridge¹,

Scissors²,

Wright³

2008

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Normal auditory perception relies on accurate judgments about the temporal relationships between sounds. Previously, we used a perceptual-learning paradigm to investigate the neural substrates of two such relative-timing judgments made at sound onset: detecting stimulus asynchrony and discriminating stimulus order. Here, we conducted parallel experiments at sound offset. Human adults practiced ∼1 h/d for 6-8 d on either asynchrony detection or order discrimination at sound offset with tones at 0.25 and 4.0 kHz. As at sound onset, learning on order-offset discrimination did not generalize to the other task (asynchrony), an untrained temporal position (onset), or untrained frequency pairs, indicating that this training affected a quite specialized neural circuit. In contrast, learning on asynchrony-offset detection generalized to the other task (order) and temporal position (onset), though not to untrained frequency pairs, implying that the training on this condition influenced a less specialized, or more interdependent, circuit. Finally, the learning patterns induced by single-session exposure to asynchrony and order tasks differed depending on whether these tasks were performed primarily at sound onset or offset, suggesting that this exposure modified circuitry specialized to separately process relative-timing tasks at these two temporal positions. Overall, it appears that the neural processes underlying relative-timing judgments are malleable, and that the nature of the affected circuitry depends on the duration of exposure (multihour or single-session) and the parameters of the judgment(s) made during that exposure.Accurately determining the temporal relationships between sounds is critical for normal auditory perception. Two auditory tasks that rely on such relative-timing judgments are asynchrony detection and order discrimination. In an asynchrony-detection task, the listener determines whether a sound's frequency components are synchronous or asynchronous, and in an orderdiscrimination task, the listener distinguishes the order of the component frequencies. Asynchrony judgments aid in the separation of sound sources (Bregman et al. 1994), while order judgments are used in the processing of speech ("mats" vs. "mast") and music (ascending vs. descending scales). In the present investigation, we use a behavioral perceptual-learning paradigm to gain insight into the neural circuitry underlying performance on auditory asynchrony and order tasks at sound offset, for comparison with the results of a previous examination of learning on the same tasks at sound onset.We previously reported that training on auditory relativetiming tasks at sound onset resulted in learning that did not generalize to any of a set of untrained conditions, suggesting that the underlying circuitry is highly specialized (Mossbridge et al. 2006). In that investigation, we trained one group of listeners on an asynchrony task (Fig. 1A) and one group on an order task (Fig. 1B), both at sound onset with the same frequency pair (0.25 and 4.0 kH...

show abstract

Section: Implications For Neural Circuitrymentioning

confidence: 90%

Learning and generalization on asynchrony and order tasks at sound offset: Implications for underlying neural circuitry

Mossbridge¹,

Scissors²,

Wright³

2008

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the lack of salience of the end of an auditory stimulus is a well-known phenomenon in hearing perception. Physiological findings highlight a greater onset encoding relative to the offset encoding: The onset response is clearly visible, whereas the offset response is scarcely observed and often reported anecdotally (Phillips, Hall, & Boehnke, 2002). Furthermore, listeners are more accurate in making discriminations on onsets than on offsets (Zera & Green, 1993).…”

Section: Damped Rampedmentioning

confidence: 91%

The subjective duration of ramped and damped sounds

Grassi

Darwin

2006

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments demonstrate that the perceived durations of sounds as long as 1 sec are influenced by the sounds' amplitude envelopes, extending Schlauch, Ries, and DiGiovanni's (2001) observations on sounds of 200-msec duration. Sounds with a monotonic decay (i.e., damped sounds) are heard as substantially shorter than both steady sounds and those with a monotonic increase of level (i.e., ramped sounds). Neither a reaction time (Experiments 1 and 2) nor a staircase (Experiment 2) procedure supported a sensory explanation for these different subjective durations. The results are compatible with the suggestion of Stecker and Hafter (2000) that listeners exclude part of the tails of damped sounds in the computation of their subjective durations.

show abstract

“…3B). In the auditory system, onset cues are precise, highly salient, and represented at multiple levels (for review, see Phillips et al, 2002). Such cues may facilitate the temporal alignment of a sensory input signal with a stored template signal during a classification process.…”

Section: Robustness and Constraints For Biological Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical Discrimination of Complex Natural Stimuli: Can Single Neurons Match Behavior?

Wang¹,

Narayan²,

Graña³

et al. 2007

J. Neurosci.

101

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central finding in many cortical areas is that single neurons can match behavioral performance in the discrimination of sensory stimuli. However, whether this is true for natural behaviors involving complex natural stimuli remains unknown. Here we use the model system of songbirds to address this problem. Specifically, we investigate whether neurons in field L, the homolog of primary auditory cortex, can match behavioral performance in the discrimination of conspecific songs. We use a classification framework based on the (dis)similarity between single spike trains to quantify neural discrimination. We use this framework to investigate the discriminability of single spike trains in field L in response to conspecific songs, testing different candidate neural codes underlying discrimination. We find that performance based on spike timing is significantly higher than performance based on spike rate and interspike intervals. We then assess the impact of temporal correlations in spike trains on discrimination. In contrast to widely discussed effects of correlations in limiting the accuracy of a population code, temporal correlations appear to improve the performance of single neurons in the majority of cases. Finally, we compare neural performance with behavioral performance. We find a diverse range of performance levels in field L, with neural performance matching behavioral accuracy only for the best neurons using a spike-timing-based code.

show abstract

Central auditory onset responses, and temporal asymmetries in auditory perception

Cited by 139 publications

References 107 publications

Learning and generalization on asynchrony and order tasks at sound offset: Implications for underlying neural circuitry

Learning and generalization on asynchrony and order tasks at sound offset: Implications for underlying neural circuitry

The subjective duration of ramped and damped sounds

Cortical Discrimination of Complex Natural Stimuli: Can Single Neurons Match Behavior?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About