Electromagnetic recording of the auditory system

Handbook of Clinical Neurology

Volumn 129, Issue , 2015, Pages 245-255

  Poeppel, David ^a   Hickok, Gregory ^b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

ASSR; Change detection; Evoked field; Evoked response; Magnetoencephalography; MEG; Neuromagnetic; Oscillation; Speech

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; AUDITORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; AUDITORY STIMULATION; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; HEARING; HUMAN; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; PHYSIOLOGY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ANIMALS; AUDITORY PATHWAYS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; HUMANS; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY;

EID: 84923327551     PISSN: 00729752     EISSN: 22124152     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-62630-1.00014-7     Document Type: Chapter

References (67)

1. Ahissar E., Nagarajan S., Ahissar M., et al. Speech comprehension is correlated with temporal response patterns recorded from auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001, 98:13367-13372.
2. Alain C., Winkler I. Recording event-related brain potentials: application to study auditory perception. The Human Auditory Cortex 2012, 69-98. Springer, New York. D. Poeppel, T. Overath, A. Popper (Eds.).
3. Alho K. Cerebral generators of mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic counterpart (MMNm) elicited by sound changes. Ear Hear 1995, 16:38-51.
4. Barton B., Venezia J.H., Saberi K., et al. Orthogonal acoustic dimensions define auditory field maps in human cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012, 109:20738-20743.
5. Bastiaansen M., Hagoort P. Oscillatory neuronal dynamics during language comprehension. Prog Brain Res 2006, 159:179-196.
6. Bendixen A., San Miguel I., Schroeder E. Early electrophysiological indicators for predictive processing in audition: a review. Int J Psychophysiol 2012, 83:120-131.
7. Bergelson E., Idsardi W.J. A neurophysiological study into the foundations of tonal harmony. Neuroreport 2009, 20:239-244.
8. Boh B., Herholz S.C., Lappe C., et al. Processing of complex auditory patterns in musicians and nonmusicians. PLoS One 2011, 6:e21458.
9. Bonte M., Parviainen T., Hytönen K., et al. Time course of top-down and bottom-up influences on syllable processing in the auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex 2006, 16:115-123.
10. Brattico E., Pallesen K.J., Varyagina O., et al. Neural discrimination of nonprototypical chords in music experts and laymen: an MEG study. J Cogn Neurosci 2009, 21:2230-2244.
11. Brignell C.J., Hall D.A., Witton C. Mapping the auditory brain using magnetoencephalography (MEG) 2008, Brain Mapping Research Developments, 13.
12. Chait M., Poeppel D., de Cheveigné A., et al. Processing asymmetry of transitions between order and disorder in human auditory cortex. J Neurosci 2007, 27:5207-5214.
13. Chandrasekaran B., Kraus N. The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology 2010, 47:236-246.
14. Clarke S., Morosan P. Architecture, Connectivity, and Transmitter Receptors of Human Auditory Cortex. The Human Auditory Cortex 2012, 11-38. Springer, New York. D. Poeppel, T. Overath, A. Popper (Eds.).
15. de Diego-Balaguer R., Fuentemilla L., Rodriguez-Fornells A. Brain dynamics sustaining rapid rule extraction from speech. J Cogn Neurosci 2011, 23:3105-3120.
16. Ding N., Simon J.Z. Neural representations of complex temporal modulations in the human auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 2009, 102:2731-2743.
17. Doelling K.B., Arnal L.H., Ghitza O., et al. Acoustic landmarks drive delta-theta oscillations to enable speech comprehension by facilitating perceptual parsing. Neuroimage 2014, 85:761-768.
18. Elhilali M., Xiang J., Shamma S.A., et al. Interaction between attention and bottom-up saliency mediates the representation of foreground and background in an auditory scene. PLoS Biol 2009, 7:e1000129.
19. Fries P. A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence. Trends Cogn Sci 2005, 9:474-480.
20. Gage N., Poeppel D., Roberts T.P., et al. Auditory evoked M100 reflects onset acoustics of speech sounds. Brain Res 1998, 814:236-239.
21. Giraud A.L., Poeppel D. Cortical oscillations and speech processing: emerging computational principles and operations. Nat Neurosci 2012, 15:511-517.
22. Giraud A.L., Kleinschmidt A., Poeppel D., et al. Endogenous cortical rhythms determine cerebral specialization for speech perception and production. Neuron 2007, 56:1127-1134.
23. Gutschalk A., Patterson R.D., Scherg M., et al. Temporal dynamics of pitch in human auditory cortex. Neuroimage 2004, 22:755-766.
24. Gutschalk A., Micheyl C., Melcher J.R., et al. Neuromagnetic correlates of streaming in human auditory cortex. J Neurosci 2005, 25:5382-5388.
25. Halgren E., Dhond R.P., Christensen N., et al. N400-like magnetoencephalography responses modulated by semantic context, word frequency, and lexical class in sentences. Neuroimage 2002, 17:1101-1116.
26. Hansen P.C., Kringelbach M.L., Salmelin R. MEG: An Introduction to Methods 2010, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
27. Helenius P., Salmelin R., Service E., et al. Cortical activation during spoken-word segmentation in nonreading-impaired and dyslexic adults. J Neurosci 2002, 22:2936-2944.
28. Howard M.F., Poeppel D. Hemispheric asymmetry in mid and long latency neuromagnetic responses to single clicks. Hear Res 2009, 257:41-52.
29. Kaas J.H., Hackett T.A. Subdivisions of auditory cortex and processing streams in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000, 97:11793-11799.
30. Kopell N., LeMasson G. Rhythmogenesis, amplitude modulation, and multiplexing in a cortical architecture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994, 91:10586-10590.
31. Krumbholz K., Patterson R.D., Seither-Preisler A., et al. Neuromagnetic evidence for a pitch processing center in Heschl's gyrus. Cereb Cortex 2003, 13:765-772.
32. Lakatos P., Shah A.S., Knuth K.H., et al. An oscillatory hierarchy controlling neuronal excitability and stimulus processing in the auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 2005, 94:1904-1911.
33. Lau E.F., Phillips C., Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nat Rev Neurosci 2008, 9:920-933.
34. Lau E., Almeida D., Hines P.C., et al. A lexical basis for N400 context effects: evidence from MEG. Brain Lang 2009, 111:161-172.
35. Luo H., Poeppel D. Phase patterns of neuronal responses reliably discriminate speech in human auditory cortex. Neuron 2007, 54:1001-1010.
36. Luo H., Wang Y., Poeppel D., et al. Concurrent encoding of frequency and amplitude modulation in human auditory cortex: MEG evidence. J Neurophysiol 2006, 96:2712-2723.
37. Luo H., Liu Z., Poeppel D. Auditory cortex tracks both auditory and visual stimulus dynamics using low-frequency neuronal phase modulation. PLoS Biol 2010, 8:e1000445.
38. Lütkenhöner B., Poeppel D. From Tones to Speech: Magnetoencephalographic Studies. The Auditory Cortex 2011, 597-615. Springer, New York. C. Schreiner, J. Winer (Eds.).
39. Lütkenhöner B., Seither-Preisler A., Seither S. Piano tones evoke stronger magnetic fields than pure tones or noise, both in musicians and non-musicians. Neuroimage 2006, 30:927-937.
40. Marinkovic K., Dhond R.P., Dale A.M., et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of modality-specific and supramodal word processing. Neuron 2003, 38:487-497.
41. Millman R.E., Prendergast G., Kitterick P.T., et al. Spatiotemporal reconstruction of the auditory steady-state response to frequency modulation using magnetoencephalography. Neuroimage 2010, 49:745-758.
42. Näätänen R., Alho K. Generators of electrical and magnetic mismatch responses in humans. Brain Topogr 1995, 7:315-320.
43. Nagarajan S., Gabriel R.A., Herman A. Magnetoencephalography. The Human Auditory Cortex 2012, 97-128. Springer, New York. D. Poeppel, T. Overath, A. Popper (Eds.).
44. Noda K., Tonoike M., Doi K., et al. Auditory evoked off-response: its source distribution is different from that of on-response. Neuroreport 1998, 9:2621-2625.
45. Obleser J., Lahiri A., Eulitz C. Magnetic brain response mirrors extraction of phonological features from spoken vowels. J Cogn Neurosci 2004, 16:31-39.
46. Pantev C., Eulitz C., Elbert T., et al. The auditory evoked sustained field: origin and frequency dependence. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994, 90:82-90.
47. Patel A.D., Balaban E. Human auditory cortical dynamics during perception of long acoustic sequences: phase tracking of carrier frequency by the auditory steady-state response. Cereb Cortex 2004, 14:35-46.
48. Peelle J.E., Davis M.H. Neural oscillations carry speech rhythm through to comprehension. Front Psychol 2012, 3:320.
49. Peelle J.E., Gross J., Davis M.H. Phase-locked responses to speech in human auditory cortex are enhanced during comprehension. Cereb Cortex 2013, 23:1378-1387.
50. Poeppel D. The analysis of speech in different temporal integration windows: cerebral lateralization as 'asymmetric sampling in time'. Speech Comm 2003, 41:245-255.
51. Poeppel D., Yellin E., Phillips C., et al. Task-induced asymmetry of the auditory evoked M100 neuromagnetic field elicited by speech sounds. Brain research. Cogn Brain Res 1996, 4:231-242.
52. Roberts T.P., Poeppel D. Latency of auditory evoked M100 as a function of tone frequency. Neuroreport 1996, 7:1138-1140.
53. Ross B., Pantev C. Auditory steady-state responses reveal amplitude modulation gap detection thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 2004, 115:2193-2206.
54. Ross B., Borgmann C., Draganova R., et al. A high-precision magnetoencephalographic study of human auditory steady-state responses to amplitude-modulated tones. J Acoust Soc Am 2000, 108:679-691.
55. Salajegheh A., Link A., Elster C., et al. Systematic latency variation of the auditory evoked M100: from average to single-trial data. Neuroimage 2004, 23:288-295.
56. Scharinger M., Idsardi W.J., Poe S. A comprehensive three-dimensional cortical map of vowel space. J Cogn Neurosci 2011, 23:3972-3982.
57. Schroeder C.E., Lakatos P., Kajikawa Y., et al. Neuronal oscillations and visual amplification of speech. Trends Cogn Sci 2008, 12:106-113.
58. Suppes P., Lu Z.L., Han B. Brain wave recognition of words. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997, 94:14965-14969.
59. Suppes P., Han B., Lu Z.L. Brain-wave recognition of sentences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998, 95:15861-15866.
60. Tavabi K., Obleser J., Dobel C., et al. Auditory evoked fields differentially encode speech features: an MEG investigation of the P50m and N100m time courses during syllable processing. Eur J Neurosci 2007, 25:3155-3162.
61. Travis K.E., Leonard M.K., Brown T.T., et al. Spatiotemporal neural dynamics of word understanding in 12- to 18-month-old-infants. Cereb Cortex 2011, 21:1832-1839.
62. Uusvuori J., Parviainen T., Inkinen M., et al. Spatiotemporal interaction between sound form and meaning during spoken word perception. Cereb Cortex 2008, 18:456-466.
63. Wang Y., Ding N., Ahmar N., et al. Sensitivity to temporal modulation rate and spectral bandwidth in the human auditory system: MEG evidence. J Neurophysiol 2012, 107:2033-2041.
64. Winkler I., Czigler I. Evidence from auditory and visual event-related potential (ERP) studies of deviance detection (MMN and vMMN) linking predictive coding theories and perceptual object representations. Int J Psychophysiol 2012, 83:132-143.
65. Xiang J., Simon J., Elhilali M. Competing streams at the cocktail party: exploring the mechanisms of attention and temporal integration. J Neurosci 2010, 30:12084-12093.
66. Zion-Golumbic E., Bickel S., Lakatos P., et al. Mechanisms underlying selective neuronal tracking of attended speech at a "cocktail party". Neuron 2013, 77:980-991.
67. Zion-Golumbic E., Cogan G., Schroeder C., et al. Visual input enhances selective speech envelope tracking in auditory cortex at a 'cocktail party'. J Neurosci 2013, 33(4):1417-1426.