Foreground-background discrimination indicated by event-related brain potentials in a new auditory multistability paradigm

Psychophysiology

Volumn 50, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 1239-1250

  Szalárdy, Orsolya ^a,b   Winkler, István ^a,c   Schröger, Erich ^d   Widmann, Andreas ^d   Bendixen, Alexandra ^d,e  

^a INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Hungary)

^b BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS   (Hungary)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SZEGED   (Hungary)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Auditory bistability; Auditory streaming; Background inhibition; MMN; N1; P1; Perceptual organization; Sound grouping; Wessel effect

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AUDITORY STIMULATION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84887402556     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: 14698986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12139     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Alain, C., & Woods, D. L. (1993). Distractor clustering enhances detection speed and accuracy during selective listening. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 509-514. doi: 10.3758/BF03211773.
2. Alain, C., & Woods, D. L. (1994). Signal clustering modulates auditory cortical activity in humans. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 501-516. doi: 10.3758/BF03206947.
3. Arnott, S. R., & Alain, C. (2002). Stepping out of the spotlight: MMN attenuation as a function of distance from the attended location. Neuroreport, 13, 2209-2212. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000045010.30898.42.cf.
4. Bendixen, A., Bohm, T., Szalárdy, O., Mill, R., Denham, S. L., & Winkler, I. (2013). Different roles of similarity and predictability in auditory stream segregation. Learning and Perception, 5, 37-54. doi: 10.1556/LP.5.2013.Suppl2.4.
5. Bendixen, A., Denham, S. L., Gyimesi, K., & Winkler, I. (2010). Regular patterns stabilize auditory streams. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128, 3658-3666. doi: 10.1121/1.3500695.
6. Bendixen, A., Schröger, E., Ritter, W., & Winkler, I. (2012). Regularity extraction from non-adjacent sounds. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 143. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00143.
7. Blake, R., & Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Visual competition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 13-23. doi: 10.1038/nrn701.
8. Bohm, T. M., Shestopalova, L., Bendixen, A., Andreou, A. G., Georgiou, J., Garreau, G., & Winkler, I. (2013). The role of perceived source location in auditory stream segregation: Separation affects sound organization, common fate does not. Learning and Perception, 5, 55-72. doi: 10.1556/LP.5.2013.Suppl2.5.
9. Chatrian, G. E., Lettich, E., & Nelson, P. L. (1985). Ten percent electrode system for topographic studies of spontaneous and evoked EEG activities. American Journal of EEG Technology, 25, 83-92.
10. Cusack, R., Deeks, J., Aikman, G., & Carlyon, R. P. (2004). Effects of location, frequency region, and time course of selective attention on auditory scene analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 643-656. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.643.
11. Cusack, R., & Roberts, B. (2000). Effects of differences in timbre on sequential grouping. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1112-1120. doi: 10.3758/BF03212092.
12. Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009.
13. Denham, S. L., Gyimesi, K., Stefanics, G., & Winkler, I. (2010). Stability of perceptual organisation in auditory streaming. In E. A. Lopez-Poveda, A. R. Palmer, & R. Meddis (Eds.), The neurophysiological bases of auditory perception. (pp. 477-487). New York, NY: Springer.
14. Denham, S. L., Gyimesi, K., Stefanics, G., & Winkler, I. (2013). Perceptual bi-stability in auditory streaming: How much do stimulus features matter? Learning and Perception, 5, 73-100. doi: 10.1556/LP.5.2013.Suppl2.6.
15. Denham, S. L., & Winkler, I. (2006). The role of predictive models in the formation of auditory streams. Journal of Physiology, Paris, 100, 154-170. doi: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2006.09.012.
16. Dolležal, L.-V., Beutelmann, R., & Klump, G. M. (2012). Stream segregation in the perception of sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tones. PLoS One, 7, e43615. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043615.
17. Elhilali, M., Xiang, J. J., Shamma, S. A., & Simon, J. Z. (2009). Interaction between attention and bottom-up saliency mediates the representation of foreground and background in an auditory scene. PLoS Biology, 7, e1000129. doi: 10.1371/Journal.Pbio.1000129.
18. Escera, C., Alho, K., Winkler, I., & Näätänen, R. (1998). Neural mechanisms of involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 590-604. doi: 10.1162/089892998562997.
19. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55, 468-484. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(83)90135-9.
20. Grimault, N., Bacon, S. P., & Micheyl, C. (2002). Auditory stream segregation on the basis of amplitude-modulation rate. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 1340-1348. doi: 10.1121/1.1452740.
21. Gutschalk, A., Micheyl, C., Melcher, J. R., Rupp, A., Scherg, M., & Oxenham, A. J. (2005). Neuromagnetic correlates of streaming in human auditory cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 5382-5388. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0347-05.2005.
22. Hill, K. T., Bishop, C. W., Yadav, D., & Miller, L. M. (2011). Pattern of BOLD signal in auditory cortex relates acoustic response to perceptual streaming. BMC Neuroscience, 12, 85. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-12-85.
23. Hillyard, S. A., & Anllo-Vento, L. (1998). Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95, 781-787. doi: 10.2307/44189.
24. Hillyard, S. A., Hink, R. F., Schwent, V. L., & Picton, T. W. (1973). Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science, 182, 177-180. doi: 10.1126/science.182.4108.177.
25. Horváth, J., Czigler, I., Sussman, E., & Winkler, I. (2001). Simultaneously active pre-attentive representations of local and global rules for sound sequences in the human brain. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 131-144. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00038-6.
26. Iverson, P. (1995). Auditory stream segregation by musical timbre: Effects of static and dynamic acoustic attributes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 751-763. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.751.
27. Jasper, H. H. (1958). The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371-375.
28. Klimesch, W. (2011). Evoked alpha and early access to the knowledge system: The P1 inhibition timing hypothesis. Brain Research, 1408, 52-71. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.06.003.
29. Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
30. Kondo, H. M., Kitagawa, N., Kitamura, M. S., Koizumi, A., Nomura, M., & Kashino, M. (2012). Separability and commonality of auditory and visual bistable perception. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 1912-1922. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr266.
31. Kujala, T., Tervaniemi, M., & Schröger, E. (2007). The mismatch negativity in cognitive and clinical neuroscience: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Biological Psychology, 74, 1-19. doi: http://10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.06.001.
32. Leopold, D. A., & Logothetis, N. K. (1999). Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 254-264. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01332-7.
33. Leopold, D. A., Wilke, M., Maier, A., & Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Stable perception of visually ambiguous patterns. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 605-609. doi: 10.1038/nn851.
34. Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (1995). The role of attention in feature detection and conjunction discrimination: An electrophysiological analysis. International Journal of Neuroscience, 80, 281-297. doi: 10.3109/00207459508986105.
35. Luck, S. J., Hillyard, S. A., Mouloua, M., Woldorff, M. G., Clark, V. P., & Hawkins, H. L. (1994). Effects of spatial cuing on luminance detectability: Psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence for early selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 887-904. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.887.
36. Moore, B. C. J., & Gockel, H. E. (2012). Properties of auditory stream formation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367, 919-931. doi: 10.1098/Rstb.2011.0355.
37. Moreno-Bote, R., Shpiro, A., Rinzel, J., & Rubin, N. (2010). Alternation rate in perceptual bistability is maximal at and symmetric around equi-dominance. Journal of Vision, 10, 1-18. doi: 10.1167/10.11.1.
38. Näätänen, R. (1990). The role of attention in auditory information-processing as revealed by event-related potentials and other brain measures of cognitive function. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 257-258. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00078687.
39. Näätänen, R., Paavilainen, P., Rinne, T., & Alho, K. (2007). The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 2544-2590. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.04.026.
40. Nager, W., Teder-Salejärvi, W., Kunze, S., & Münte, T. F. (2003). Preattentive evaluation of multiple perceptual streams in human audition. NeuroReport, 14, 871-874. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000069961.11849.3d.
41. Orbach, J., Ehrlich, D., & Heath, H. A. (1963). Reversibility of the Necker cube. I. An examination of the concept of "satiation of orientation". Perceptual and Motor Skills, 17, 439-458. doi: 10.2466/pms.1963.17.2.439.
42. Parasuraman, R. (1978). Auditory evoked potentials and divided attention. Psychophysiology, 15, 460-465. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1978.tb01416.x.
43. Pressnitzer, D., & Hupé, J.-M. (2006). Temporal dynamics of auditory and visual bistability reveal common principles of perceptual organization. Current Biology, 16, 1351-1357. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.054.
44. Rahne, T., Böckmann, M., von Specht, H., & Sussman, E. S. (2007). Visual cues can modulate integration and segregation of objects in auditory scene analysis. Brain Research, 1144, 127-135. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.01.074.
45. Roberts, B., Glasberg, B. R., & Moore, B. C. J. (2002). Primitive stream segregation of tone sequences without differences in fundamental frequency or passband. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 112, 2074-2085. doi: 10.1121/1.1508784.
46. Roeber, U., & Schröger, E. (2004). Binocular rivalry is partly resolved at early processing stages with steady and with flickering presentation: A human event-related brain potential study. Neuroscience Letters, 371, 51-55. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2004.08.038.
47. Roeber, U., Widmann, A., Trujillo-Barreto, N. J., Herrmann, C. S., O'Shea, R. P., & Schröger, E. (2008). Early correlates of visual awareness in the human brain: Time and place from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Vision, 8, 1-12. doi: 10.1167/8.3.21.
48. Ross, J., Tervaniemi, M., & Näätänen, R. (1996). Neural mechanisms of the octave illusion: Electrophysiological evidence for central origin. NeuroReport, 8, 303-306. doi: 10.1097/00001756-199612200-00060.
49. Schröger, E. (2007). Mismatch negativity: A microphone into auditory memory. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 138-146. doi: 10.1027/0269-8803.21.34.138.
50. Schwartz, J.-L., Grimault, N., Hupé, J.-M., Moore, B. C. J., & Pressnitzer, D. (2012). Multistability in perception: Binding sensory modalities, an overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367, 896-905. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0254.
51. Singh, P. G. (1987). Perceptual organization of complex tone sequences: A tradeoff between pitch and timbre? Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 886-899. doi: 10.1121/1.395287.
52. Snyder, J. S., Carter, O. L., Hannon, E. E., & Alain, C. (2009). Adaptation reveals multiple levels of representation in auditory stream segregation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1232-1244. doi: 10.1037/a0012741.
53. Snyder, J. S., Carter, O. L., Lee, S. K., Hannon, E. E., & Alain, C. (2008). Effects of context on auditory stream segregation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1007-1016. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.1007.
54. Snyder, J. S., Holder, W. T., Weintraub, D. M., Carter, O. L., & Alain, C. (2009). Effects of prior stimulus and prior perception on neural correlates of auditory stream segregation. Psychophysiology, 46, 1208-1215. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00870.x.
55. Sussman, E. S. (2007). A new view on the MMN and attention debate-The role of context in processing auditory events. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 164-175. doi: 10.1027/0269-8803.21.34.164.
56. Sussman, E. S., Bregman, A. S., Wang, W. J., & Khan, F. J. (2005). Attentional modulation of electrophysiological activity in auditory cortex for unattended sounds within multistream auditory environments. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 93-110. doi: 10.3758/CABN.5.1.93.
57. Sussman, E., Ritter, W., & Vaughan, H. G. (1999). An investigation of the auditory streaming effect using event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 36, 22-34. doi: 10.1017/S0048577299971056.
58. Sussman, E., Ritter, W., & Vaughan, H. G., Jr. (1998). Attention affects the organization of auditory input associated with the mismatch negativity system. Brain Research, 789, 130-138. doi: 10.1016/S0006-8993(97)01443-1.
59. Sussman, E., Winkler, I., Huotilainen, M., Ritter, W., & Näätänen, R. (2002). Top-down effects can modify the initially stimulus-driven auditory organization. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 393-405. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00131-8.
60. Szalárdy, O., Bendixen, A., Tóth, D., Denham, S. L., & Winkler, I. (2013). Modulation-frequency acts as a primary cue for auditory stream segregation. Learning and Perception, 5, 149-161. doi: 10.1556/LP.5.2013.Suppl2.9.
61. Szalárdy, O., Bohm, T. M., Bendixen, A., & Winkler, I. (2013). Event-related potential correlates of sound organization: Early sensory and late cognitive effects. Biological Psychology, 93, 97-104. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.01.015.
62. Takegata, R., Brattico, E., Tervaniemi, M., Varyagina, O., Näätänen, R., & Winkler, I. (2005). Preattentive representation of feature conjunctions for concurrent spatially distributed auditory objects. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 169-179. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.05.006.
63. Tervaniemi, M., Winkler, I., & Näätänen, R. (1997). Pre-attentive categorization of sounds by timbre as revealed by event related potentials. NeuroReport, 8, 2571-2574.
64. Valle-Inclan, F., Hackley, S. A., de Labra, C., & Alvarez, A. (1999). Early visual processing during binocular rivalry studied with visual evoked potentials. NeuroReport, 10, 21-25.
65. van Zuijen, T. L., Simoens, V. L., Paavilainen, P., Näätänen, R., & Tervaniemi, M. (2006). Implicit, intuitive, and explicit knowledge of abstract regularities in a sound sequence: An event-related brain potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1292-1303. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.8.1292.
66. Wessel, D. L. (1979). Timbre space as a musical control structure. Computer Music Journal, 3, 45-52. doi: 10.2307/3680283.
67. Winkler, I. (2007). Interpreting the mismatch negativity. Journal of Psychophysiology, 21, 147-163. doi: 10.1027/0269-8803.21.34.147.
68. Winkler, I., Denham, S., Mill, R., Bohm, T. M., & Bendixen, A. (2012). Multistability in auditory stream segregation: A predictive coding view. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367, 1001-1012. doi: 10.1098/Rstb.2011.0359.
69. Winkler, I., Denham, S. L., & Nelken, I. (2009). Modeling the auditory scene: Predictive regularity representations and perceptual objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 532-540. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.003.
70. Winkler, I., Kushnerenko, E., Horváth, J., Čeponiene R., Fellman, V., Huotilainen, M., ... Sussman, E. (2003). Newborn infants can organize the auditory world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 11812-11815. doi: 10.2307/3147874.
71. Winkler, I., Sussman, E., Tervaniemi, M., Horváth, J., Ritter, W., & Näätänen, R. (2003). Preattentive auditory context effects. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 57-77. doi: 10.3758/CABN.3.1.57.
72. Winkler, I., Takegata, R., & Sussman, E. (2005). Event-related brain potentials reveal multiple stages in the perceptual organization of sound. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 291-299. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.06.005.
73. Winkler, I., Teder-Salejärvi, W. A., Horváth, J., Näätänen, R., & Sussman, E. (2003). Human auditory cortex tracks task-irrelevant sound sources. NeuroReport, 14, 2053-2056. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000095496.09138.6d.
74. Winkler, I., van Zuijen, T. L., Sussman, E., Horváth, J., & Näätänen, R. (2006). Object representation in the human auditory system. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 625-634. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.04925.x.