Musical prediction error responses similarly reduced by predictive uncertainty in musicians and non-musicians

Abstract

Auditory prediction error responses elicited by surprising sounds can be reliably recorded with musical stimuli that are more complex and realistic than those typically employed in EEG or MEG oddball paradigms. However, these responses are reduced as the predictive uncertainty of the stimuli increases. In this study, we investigate whether this effect is modulated by musical expertise. Magnetic mismatch negativity (MMNm) responses were recorded from 26 musicians and 24 non-musicians while they listened to low-and high-uncertainty melodic sequences in a musical multi-feature paradigm that included pitch, slide, intensity, and timbre deviants. When compared to non-musicians, musically trained participants had significantly larger pitch and slide MMNm responses. However, both groups showed comparable reductions of pitch and slide MMNm amplitudes in the high-uncertainty condition compared to the lowuncertainty condition. In a separate, behavioral deviance detection experiment, musicians were more accurate and confident about their responses than non-musicians, but deviance detection in both groups was similarly affected by the uncertainty of the melodies. In both experiments, the interaction between uncertainty and expertise was not significant, suggesting that the effect is comparable in both groups. Consequently, our results replicate the modulatory effect of predictive uncertainty on prediction error; show that it is present across different types of listeners; and suggest that expertise-related and stimulus-driven modulations of predictive precision are dissociable and independent.

Decomposing neural responses to melodic surprise in musicians and non-musicians: evidence for a hierarchy of predictions in the auditory system

“…The latency of the MMNm was significantly longer (t = 35.68, p < .001) and its amplitude was significantly larger (t = 8.37, p < .001) than those of the N1m, in the mean and peak amplitude analyses. Moreover, expertise effects were found for the MMNm (p < .001), thus reproducing in the magnetometer space the differences previously reported for combined gradiometers (Quiroga-Martinez et al, 2019a). Regarding source analyses, one-sample t-tests suggested that the main generators of both the MMNm and the N1m were located in the surroundings of primary auditory cortex, as expected (Figure 9).…”

“…The stimuli were delivered in three blocks lasting around seven minutes each and were part of a longer experimental session that included other conditions addressing questions beyond the scope of this study. Data from these conditions have been (Quiroga-Martinez et al, 2019a, 2019b and will be published elsewhere. Individual tones were created using a piano sample and had a duration of 250 ms.…”

“…The preprocessing steps for the measurement of the MMNm were the same as for the N1m, with the difference that, instead of surprise levels, an ERF was computed for only two conditions: standards and deviants. The MMNm is the difference between these two conditions, which was assessed here for magnetometers through paired-samples t-tests in mass-univariate analyses (note that statistical analyses for the MMNm had previously been conducted for gradiometers in Quiroga-Martinez et al 2019a, 2019b. The deviants analyzed here correspond to out-of-tune tones (i.e., tones with pitches outside the musical tuning system that cannot normally be played on a piano).…”

“…Second, we compared-in sensor and source space-the N1m modulation with the magnetic counterpart of the mismatch negativity (MMNm), which is a well-studied brain response to the violation of auditory regularities (Bendixen, SanMiguel, & Schröger, 2012;Garrido, Kilner, Stephan, & Friston, 2009;Näätänen, Gaillard, & Mäntysalo, 1978;Näätänen, Paavilainen, Rinne, & Alho, 2007). Since our dataset was recorded employing a novel MMN experimental paradigm with realistic non-repetitive melodies as stimuli (Quiroga-Martinez et al, 2019b, 2019a, it provided a valuable opportunity to compare these responses in the same subjects. This comparison aimed to determine whether the N1m modulation could be better interpreted as an MMNm, something that was not clear from the results in Omigie et al, (2013).…”