The role of mechanical impact in action-related auditory attenuation

Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 1392-1406

  Horváth, János ^a  

^a Research Centre for Natural Sciences Hungarian Academy of Sciences   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Action; Attention; Auditory perception; ERP; Forward model

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84931344051     PISSN: 15307026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13415-014-0283-x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aliu, S. O., Houde, J. F., & Nagarajan, S. S. (2009). Motor-induced suppression of the auditory cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 791–802. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21055
2. Baess, P., Horváth, J., Jacobsen, T., & Schröger, E. (2011). Selective suppression of self-initiated sounds in an auditory stream: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 48, 1276–1283. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01196.x
3. Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384. doi:10.3758/BF03192707
4. Brown, H., Friston, K., & Bestmann, S. (2011). Active inference, attention, and motor preparation. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 218. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00218
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Crapse, T. B., & Sommer, M. A. (2008a). Corollary discharge across the animal kingdom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 587–600. doi:10.1038/nrn2457
7. Crapse, T. B., & Sommer, M. A. (2008b). Corollary discharge circuits in the primate brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18, 552–557. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2008.09.017
8. Davidson, P. R., & Wolpert, D. M. (2005). Widespread access to predictive models in the motor system: A short review. Journal of Neural Engineering, 2, S313–S319. doi:10.1088/1741-2560/2/3/S11
9. Desantis, A., Hughes, G., & Waszak, F. (2012a). Intentional binding is driven by the mere presence of an action and not by motor prediction. PLoS ONE, 7, e29557. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029557
10. Desantis, A., Weiss, C., Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Waszak, F. (2012b). Believing and perceiving: Authorship belief modulates sensory attenuation. PLoS ONE, 7, e37959. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037959
11. Ford, J. M., Gray, M., Faustman, W. O., Roach, B. J., & Mathalon, D. H. (2007). Dissecting corollary discharge dysfunction in schizophrenia. Psychophysiology, 44, 522–529. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00533.x
12. Galazky, I., Schütze, H., Noesselt, T., Hopf, J.-M., Heinze, H.-J., & Schoenfeld, M. A. (2009). Attention to somatosensory events is directly linked to the preparation for action. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 279, 93–98. doi:10.1016/j.jns.2008.12.006
13. Hazemann, P., Audin, G., & Lille, F. (1975). Effect of voluntary self-paced movements upon auditory and somatosensory evoked potentials in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 39, 247–254. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(75)90146-7
14. 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
15. Horváth, J. (2013a). Action-sound coincidence-related attenuation of auditory ERPs is not modulated by affordance compatibility. Biological Psychology, 93, 81–87. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.12.008
16. Horváth, J. (2013b). Attenuation of auditory ERPs to action-sound coincidences is not explained by voluntary allocation of attention. Psychophysiology, 50, 266–273. doi:10.1111/psyp.12009
17. Horváth, J., & Burgyán, A. (2013). No evidence for peripheral mechanism attenuating auditory ERPs to self-induced tones. Psychophysiology, 50, 563–569. doi:10.1111/psyp.12041
18. Horváth, J., Maess, B., Baess, P., & Tóth, A. (2012). Action–sound coincidences suppress evoked responses of the human auditory cortex in EEG and MEG. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 1919–1931. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00215
19. Horváth, J., & Winkler, I. (2010). Distraction in a continuous-stimulation detection task. Biological Psychology, 83, 229–238. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.01.004
20. Hughes, G., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2013). Mechanisms of intentional binding and sensory attenuation: The role of temporal prediction, temporal control, identity prediction, and motor prediction. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 133–151. doi:10.1037/a0028566
21. Knolle, F., Schröger, E., Baess, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2012). The cerebellum generates motor-to-auditory predictions: ERP lesion evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 698–706. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00167
22. Makeig, S., Mueller, M. M., & Rockstroh, B. (1996). Effects of voluntary movements on early auditory brain responses. Experimental Brain Research, 110, 487–492.
23. Martikainen, M. H., Kaneko, K., & Hari, R. (2005). Suppressed responses to self-triggered sounds in the human auditory cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 299–302. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhh131
24. McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E. (1976). The effects of temporal and event uncertainty in determining the waveforms of the auditory event related potential (ERP). Psychophysiology, 13, 581–590. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1976.tb00885.x
25. McCarthy, G., & Wood, C. C. (1985). Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 62, 203–208. doi:10.1016/0168-5597(85)90015-2
26. Miall, R. C., & Wolpert, D. M. (1996). Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Networks, 9, 1265–1279.
27. Näätänen, R., & Picton, T. (1987). The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: A review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology, 24, 375–425. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00311.x
28. Nuwer, M. R., Comi, G., Emerson, R., Fuglsang-Frederiksen, A., Guérit, J.-M., Hinrichs, H.,.. Rappelsburger, P. (1998). IFCN standards for digital recording of clinical EEG. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 106, 259–261. doi:10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00106-5
29. Okamoto, H., Stracke, H., Wolters, C. H., Schmael, F., & Pantev, C. (2007). Attention improves population-level frequency tuning in human auditory cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 10383–10390. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2963-07.2007
30. Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8, 434–447. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434
31. R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.0.0). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from www.R-project.org/
32. SanMiguel, I., Todd, J., & Schröger, E. (2013). Sensory suppression effects to self-initiated sounds reflect the attenuation of the unspecific N1 component of the auditory ERP. Psychophysiology, 50, 334–343. doi:10.1111/psyp.12024
33. Saupe, K., Widmann, A., Trujillo-Barreto, N. J., & Schröger, E. (2013). Sensorial suppression of self-generated sounds and its dependence on attention. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 90, 300–310. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.09.006
34. Schafer, E. W. P., & Marcus, M. M. (1973). Self-stimulation alters human sensory brain responses. Science, 181, 175–177. doi:10.1126/science.181.4095.175
35. Schlögl, A., Keinrath, C., Zimmermann, D., Scherer, R., Leeb, R., & Pfurtscheller, G. (2007). A fully automated correction method of EOG artifacts in EEG recordings. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 98–104. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2006.09.003
36. Sowman, P. F., Kuusik, A., & Johnson, B. W. (2012). Self-initiation and temporal cueing of monaural tones reduce the auditory N1 and P2. Experimental Brain Research, 222, 149–157. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3204-7
37. Sperry, R. W. (1950). Neural basis of the spontaneous optokinetic response produced by visual inversion. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 43, 482–489.
38. Timm, J., SanMiguel, I., Saupe, K., & Schröger, E. (2013). The N1-suppression effect for self-initiated sounds is independent of attention. BMC Neuroscience, 14, 2. doi:10.1186/1471-2202-14-2
39. Vaughan, H. G., Jr., & Ritter, W. (1970). The sources of auditory evoked responses recorded from the human scalp. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 28, 360–367.
40. von Holst, E., & Mittelstaedt, H. (1950). Das reafferenzprinzip. Naturwissenschaften, 37, 464–476.
41. Weiss, C., Herwig, A., & Schütz-Bosbach, S. (2011). The self in action effects: Selective attenuation of self-generated sounds. Cognition, 121, 207–218. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.011
42. Wolpaw, J. R., & Penry, J. K. (1975). A temporal component of the auditory evoked response. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 39, 609–620. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(75)90073-5