Effects of context on electrophysiological response to musical accents

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Volumn 1169, Issue , 2009, Pages 470-480

  Palmer, Caroline ^a   Jewett, Lisa R ^a   Steinhauer, Karsten ^a,b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Context effects; ERP; Melodic contour; Mismatch negativity; Musical accents; P300; Perceptual independence; Rhythmic grouping; Timbre

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MUSIC; NERVE POTENTIAL; NORMAL HUMAN; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORKING MEMORY;

EID: 68649089528     PISSN: 00778923     EISSN: 17496632     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04584.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Capota, C.A. 2005.The perception of phrase boundaries inmusic. Senior thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
2. Goydke, K.N., E. Altenmueller, J. Möller & T.F. Munte. 2004. Changes in emotional tone and instrumental timbre are reflected by the mismatch negativity. Cogn. Brain Res. 21: 351-359.
3. Trainor, L.J., K.L. Macdonald & C. Alain. 2002. Automatic and controlled processing of melodic contour and interval information measured by electrical brain activity. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 14: 430-442.
4. Boltz, M. & M.R. Jones. 1986. Does rule recursion make melodies easier to reproduce? If not, what does? Cogn. Psychol. 18: 389-431.
5. Drake, C., W.J. Dowling & C. Palmer. 1990. Accent structures in the reproduction of simple tunes by children and adult pianists. Music Percept. 8: 315-333.
6. Melara, R.D. & L.E. Marks. 1990. Interaction among auditory dimensions: timbre, pitch, and loudness. Percept. Psychophys. 48: 169-178.
7. Semal, C. & L. Demany. 1991. Dissociation of pitch fromtimbre in auditory short-termmemory. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89: 2404-2410.
8. Ladefoged, P., & D.E. Broadbent. 1965. Perception of sequence in auditory events. Q. J. Exp. Psych. 13: 162-170.
9. Fodor, J.A. & T.G. Bever. 1965. The psychological reality of linguistic segments. J. Verbal Learning Verbal Behav. 4: 414-420.
10. Gregory, A.H. 1978. Perception of clicks in music. Percept. Psychophys. 24: 171-174.
11. Stoffer, T.H. 1985. Representation of phrase structure in the perception of music. Music Percept. 3: 191-220.
12. Näätänen, R. 2001. The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by themismatch negativity (MMN)and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). Psychophysiology 38: 1-21.
13. Näätänen, R. 2007. The mismatch negativity: where is the big fish? J. Psychophysiol. 21: 133-137.
14. Donchin, E. 1981. Surprise! . . . Surprise? Psychophysiology 18: 493-513.
15. Donchin, E., M.G.H. Coles. 1988. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behav. Brain Sci. 11: 357-374.
16. Tervaniemi, M., A. Castaneda, M. Knoll & M. Uther. 2006. Sound processing in amateur musicians and nonmusicians: event-related potential and behavioral indices. Neuroreport 17: 1225-1228.
17. Grimm, S. & E. Schröger. 2005. Pre-attentive and attentive processing of temporal and frequency characteristics within long sounds. Cogn. Brain Res. 25: 711-721.
18. McAdams, S., S.Winsberg, S. Donnadieu, et al. 1995. Perceptual scaling of synthesized musical timbres: common dimensions, specificities, and latent subject classes. Psychol. Res. 58: 177-192.
19. Crummer, G.C., J.P. Walton, J.W. Wayman, et al. 1994. Neural processing of musical timbre by musicians, nonmusicians, and musicians possessing absolute pitch. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95: 2720-2727.
20. Rinne T., S. Antila & I.Winkler. 2001.MMNis unaffected by top-down predictive information. Neuroreport 12: 2209-2213.
21. Caclin, A., M.H. Giard, B.K. Smith & S.McAdams. 2007. Interactive processing of timbre dimensions: a Garner interference study. Brain Res. 1138: 159-170.