Auditory Object Formation and Its Neural Correlates in Cortical Evoked Responses

Мұқаба

Дәйексөз келтіру

Толық мәтін

Ашық рұқсат Ашық рұқсат
Рұқсат жабық Рұқсат берілді
Рұқсат жабық Тек жазылушылар үшін

Аннотация

Hearing out of a specific sound in a complex acoustic environment, also known as auditory figure-ground segregation, presents a challenge that each listener must overcome on a daily basis. The constituents of acoustic scenes often overlap both in time and in frequency content. The human auditory system constantly analyzes them using concurrent and sequential grouping mechanisms, and either forms stable auditory objects, or shows perceptual switching between integrated and segregated organization of auditory stream. This review focuses on auditory evoked potentials (ERPs) as a tool for studying the perceptual separation of auditory objects in various experimental settings, and emphasizes the role of spatial sound features which can support auditory segregation, though spatial effects are generally weaker than spectral and temporal sound properties. The pre-attentive stage of simultaneous grouping and figure-ground segregation is reflected in object-related negativity (ORN). The next positive P400 wave likely represents cognitive processing related to decision making about the number of auditory objects. The analysis of ERPs allows for the study of different stages of auditory stream segregation, where ongoing stimulation does not vary and its perception switches regularly between two perceptual states. ERP components P1, N1, N2, P3a, MMN and the sustained response can serve as indicators of perceptual switching during segregation of auditory streams. To date, neural correlates of localization features during figure-ground segregation have remained underexplored. From a fundamental perspective, it is essential that auditory segregation occurs at the pre-attentive stage of perception. However, it can also be observed in late ERP components related to attention switching. Overall, ERPs can be a potential clinical tool for evaluating auditory object formation in real-life situations.

Авторлар туралы

L. Shestopalova

Pavlov Institute of Physiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: shestopalovalb@infran.ru
St. Petersburg, 199034 Russia

Әдебиет тізімі

  1. Шестопалова Л.Б., Петропавловская Е.А. Негативность рассогласования и пространственный слух // Успехи физиологических наук. 2019. Т. 50. № 3. С. 14. doi: 10.1134/S0301179819030093.
  2. Alain C. Breaking the wave: effects of attention and learning on concurrent sound perception // Hear. Res. 2007. V. 229. P. 225–236. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2007.01.011.
  3. Alain C., Arnott S.R., Picton T.W. Bottom-up and top-down influences on auditory scene analysis: Evidence from event-related brain potentials // J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2001. V. 27. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.27.5.1072.
  4. Alain C., Izenberg A. Effects of attentional load on auditory scene analysis // J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2003. V. 15. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903770007443.
  5. Alain C., Schuler B.M., McDonald K.L. Neural activity associated with distinguishing concurrent auditory objects // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002. V. 111. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1434942.
  6. Alain C., Reinke K., McDonald K.L. et al. Left thalamo-cortical network implicated in successful speech separation and identification // Neuroimage. 2005. V. 26. P. 592–599. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.006.
  7. Assmann P.F. Modeling the perception of concurrent vowels: Role of formant transitions // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1996. V. 100. № 2. P. 1141–1152.
  8. Best V., Gallun F.J., Carlile S., Shinn-Cunnin- gham B.G. Binaural interference and auditory grouping // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007. V. 121. № 2. P. 1070–1076. doi: 10.1121/1.2407738.
  9. Bidelman G.M., Alain C. Hierarchical neurocomputations underlying concurrent sound segregation: Connecting periphery to percept // Neuropsychologia. 2015. V. 68. P. 38–50. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.12.020.
  10. Bizley J.K., Cohen Y.E. The what, where and how of auditory-object perception // Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2013. V. 14. № 10. P. 693–707. doi: 10.1038/nrn3565.
  11. Boehnke S.E., Phillips D.P. The relation between auditory temporal interval processing and sequential stream segregation examined with stimulus laterality differences // Percept. Psychophys. 2005. V. 67. P. 1088–1101. doi: 10.3758/bf03193634.
  12. Bőhm T.M., Shestopalova L., Bendixen A. et al. The role of perceived source location in auditory stream segregation: Separation affects sound organization, common fate does not // Learn. Percept. 2013. V. 5. Suppl. 2. P. 55–72. doi: 10.1556/LP.5.2013.Suppl2.5.
  13. Bregman A.S. Auditory Scene Analysis. 1990. ISBN: 9780262521956. MIT Press.
  14. Calcus A. Development of auditory scene analysis: A mini-review // Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2024. V. 18: 1352247. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1352247.
  15. Clapp W.C., Johnson B.W., Hautus M.J. Graded cue information in dichotic pitch: Effects on event-related potentials // Neuroreport. 2007. V. 18. № 4. P. 365–368. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e32801776d1.
  16. Culling J.F., Summerfield Q. Perceptual separation of concurrent speech sounds: Absence of across-frequency grouping by common interaural delay // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1995. V. 98. P. 785–797.
  17. De Cheveigné A., Kawahara H., Tsuzaki M., Aikawa K. Concurrent vowel identification. I. Effects of relative amplitude and F0 difference // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1997. V. 101. № 5. P. 2839–2847.
  18. Denham S.L., Gyimesi K., Stefanics G., Wink- ler I. Stability of perceptual organization in auditory streaming // In: The Neurophysiological Bases of Auditory Perception, eds. E.A. Lo- pez-Poveda, A.R. Palmer, R. Meddis. New York, Springer. 2010. P. 477–487. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-5686-6_44.
  19. Denham S.L., Gyimesi K., Stefanics G., Wink- ler I. Perceptual bi-stability in auditory streaming: How much do stimulus features matter? // Learn. Percept. 2013. V. 5. Suppl. 2. P. 73–100. doi: 10.1556/LP.5.2013.Suppl2.6.
  20. Denham S.L., Winkler I. Predictive coding in auditory perception: challenges and unresolved questions // Eur. J. Neurosci. 2020. V. 51. № 5. P. 1151–1160. doi: 10.1111/ejn.13802.
  21. Dougherty R.F., Cynader M.S., Bjornson B.H., Edgell D., Giaschi D.E. Dichotic pitch: A new stimulus distinguishes normal and dyslexic auditory function // NeuroReport. 1998. V. 9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199809140-00015.
  22. Du Y., He Y., Ross B. et al. Human auditory cortex activity shows additive effects of spectral and spatial cues during speech segregation // Cerebral Cortex. 2010. V. 21. № 3. P. 698–707. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhq136.
  23. Dyson B.J., Alain C. Representation of concurrent acoustic objects in primary auditory cortex // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004. V. 115. № 1. P. 280–288. doi: 10.1121/1.1631945.
  24. Dyson B.J., Alain C., He Y. Effects of visual attentional load on low-level auditory scene analysis // Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 2005. V. 5. doi: 10.3758/cabn.5.3.319.
  25. Fishman Y.I., Steinschneider M., Micheyl C. Neural representation of concurrent harmonic sounds in monkey primary auditory cortex: implications for models of auditory scene analysis // J. Neurosci. 2014. V. 34. № 37. P. 12425–12443. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0025-14.2014.
  26. Gohari N., Dastgerdi Z.H., Bernstein L.J., Alain C. Neural correlates of concurrent sound perception: A review and guidelines for future research // Brain and Cognition. 2022. V. 163. 105914. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2022.105914.
  27. Gohari N., Dastgerdi Z.H., Rouhbakhsh N., Af- shar S., Mobini R. Training Programs for Improving Speech Perception in Noise: A Review // J. Audiol. Otol. 2023. V. 27. № 1. P. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7874/jao.2022.00283.
  28. Griffiths T.D., Warren J.D. The planum temporale as a computational hub // Trends in Neurosci. 2002. V. 25. № 7. P. 348–353. doi: 10.1016/s0166-2236(02)02191-4.
  29. Grimault N., Bacon S.P., Micheyl C. Auditory stream segregation on the basis of amplitude-modulation rate // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002. V. 111. P. 1340–1348. doi: 10.1121/1.1452740.
  30. Guo X., Dheerendra P., Benzaquén E., Sed- ley W., Griffiths T.D. EEG responses to auditory figure-ground perception // Hear. Res. 2022. V. 422. 108524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2022.108524.
  31. Hautus M.J., Johnson B.W. Object-related brain potentials associated with the perceptual segregation of a dichotically embedded pitch // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005. V. 117. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1828499.
  32. Higgins N.C., Little D.F., Yerkes B.D. et al. Neural correlates of perceptual switching while listening to bistable auditory streaming stimuli // Neuroimage. 2020. V. 204: 116220. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116220.
  33. Higgins N.C., Scurry A.N., Jiang F. et al. Adaptation in the sensory cortex drives bistable switching during auditory stream segregation // Neurosci. Conscious. 2023. V. 1. P. 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org./10.1093/nc/niac019.
  34. Johnson B.W. Processing of Binaural Information in Human Auditory Cortex // In: Advances in Sound Localization. P. Strumillo (ed.). 2011. P. 407–430. doi: 10.5772/14268-Source: InTech. ISBN978-953-307-224-1.
  35. Johnson B.W., Hautus M.J. Processing of binaural spatial information in human auditory cortex: Neuromagnetic responses to interaural timing and level differences // Neuropsychologia. 2010. V. 48. № 9. P. 2610–2619. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.008.
  36. Johnson B.W., Hautus M.J., Duff D.J., Clapp W.C. Sequential processing of interaural timing differences for sound source segregation and spatial localization: Evidence from event-related cortical potentials // Psychophysiol. 2007. V. 44. № 4. P. 541–551. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00535.x.
  37. Kidd G., Mason C.R., Deliwala P.S., Woods W.S., Colburn H.S. Reducing informational masking by sound segregation // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994. V. 95. P. 3475–3480. doi: 10.1121/1.410023.
  38. Kidd G., Mason C.R., Dai H. Discriminating coherence in spectro-temporal patterns // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1995. V. 97. P. 3782–3790. doi: 10.1121/1.413107.
  39. Kidd G., Mason C.R. Multiple bursts, multiple looks, and stream coherence in the release from informational masking // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003. V. 114. P. 2835–2845. doi: 10.1121/1.1621864.
  40. Kocsis Z., Winkler I., Szalárdy O., Bendixen A. Effects of multiple congruent cues on concurrent sound segregation during passive and active listening: An event-related potential (ERP) study // Biol. Psychol. 2014. V. 100. P. 20–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.04.005.
  41. Kocsis Z., Winkler I., Bendixen A., Alaine C. Promoting the perception of two and three concurrent sound objects: An event-related potential study // Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2016. V. 107. P. 16–28. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.06.016.
  42. Lipp R., Kitterick P., Summerfield Q., Bai- ley P.J., Paul-Jordanov I. Concurrent sound segregation based on inharmonicity and onset asynchrony // Neuropsychologia. 2010. V. 48. № 5. P. 1417–1425. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.01.009.
  43. Lodhia V., Brock J., Johnson B.W., Hautus M.J. Reduced object related negativity response indicates impaired auditory scene analysis in adults with autistic spectrum disorder // PeerJ. 2014. Feb 25:2:e261. doi.org/10.7717/peerj.261.
  44. Lodhia V., Hautus M.J., Johnson B.W., Brock J. Atypical brain responses to auditory spatial cues in adults with autism spectrum disorder // Eur. J. Neurosci. 2018. V. 47. № 6. P. 682–689. doi: 10.1111/ejn.13694.
  45. McDonald K.L., Alain C. Contribution of harmonicity and location to auditory object formation in free field: Evidence from event-related brain potentials // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005. V. 118. № 3. Pt 1. P. 1593–1604. doi: 10.1121/1.2000747.
  46. Mehrkian S., Moossavi A., Gohari N., Nazari M.A., Bakhshi E.A.C. Long Latency auditory evoked potentials and object-related negativity based on harmonicity in hearing-impaired children // Neurosci. Res. 2022. V. 178. P. 52–59. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2022.01.001.
  47. Micheyl C., Oxenham A.J. Objective and subjective psychophysical measures of auditory stream integration and segregation // JARO. 2010. V.11. P. 709–724. doi: 10.1007/s10162-010-0227-2.
  48. Middlebrooks J.C., Onsan Z.A. Stream segregation with high spatial acuity // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2012. V. 132. № 6. P. 3896–3911. doi: 10.1121/1.4764879
  49. Molloy K., Lavie N., Chait M. Auditory figure-ground segregation is impaired by high visual load // J. Neurosci. 2019. V. 39. № 9. P. 1699 –1708. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2518-18.2018.
  50. Moore B.C., Glasberg B.R., Peters R.W. Thresholds for hearing mistimed partials as separate tones in harmonic complexes // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1986. V. 80. P. 479–483.
  51. Pressnitzer D., Hupé J.M. Temporal dynamics of auditory and visual bistability reveal common principles of perceptual organization // Curr. Biol. 2006. V. 16. № 13. P. 1351–1357. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.054.
  52. Ramage E.M., Klimas N., Vogel S.J. et al. Concurrent sound segregation impairments in schizophrenia: The contribution of auditory-specific and general cognitive factors // Schizophr. Res. 2016. V. 170. № 1. P. 95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2015.11.023.
  53. Reed D.K., Chait M., Tóth B., Winkler I., Shinn-Cunningham B. Spatial cues can support auditory figure-ground segregation // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2020. V. 147. № 6. P. 3814–3818. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001387.
  54. Roberts B., Glasberg B.R., Moore B.C. Primitive stream segregation of tone sequences without differences in fundamental frequency or pas-sband // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002. V. 112. P. 2074–2085. doi: 10.1121/1.1508784.
  55. Sanders L.D., Joh A.S., Keen R.E., Freyman R.L. One sound or two? Object-related negativity indexes echo perception // Percept. Psychophys. 2008. V. 70. № 8. P. 1558–1570. doi: 10.3758/PP.70.8.1558.
  56. Sanders R.D., Winston J.S., Barnes G.R., Rees G. Magnetoencephalographic correlates of perceptual state during auditory bistability // Sci. Rep. 2018. V. 8. P. 976. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19287-0.
  57. Schadwinkel S., Gutschalk A. Functional dissociation of transient and sustained fMRI BOLD components in human auditory cortex revealed with a streaming paradigm based on interaural time differences // Eur. J. Neurosci. 2010a. V. 32. P. 1970–1978. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07459.x.
  58. Schadwinkel S., Gutschalk A. Activity associated with stream segregation in human auditory cortex is similar for spatial and pitch cues // Cereb. Cortex. 2010b. V. 20. P. 2863–2873. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhq037.
  59. Schadwinkel S., Gutschalk A. Transient bold activity locked to perceptual reversals of auditory streaming in human auditory cortex and inferior colliculus // J. Neurophysiol. 2011. V. 105. P. 1977–1983. doi: 10.1152/jn.00461.2010.
  60. Schneider F., Dheerendra P., Balezeau F. et al. Auditory figure-ground analysis in rostral belt and parabelt of the macaque monkey // Sci. Rep. 2018. V. 8: 17948. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36903-1.
  61. Schneider F., Balezeau F., Distler C. et al. Neuronal figure-ground responses in primate primary auditory cortex // Cell Rep. 2021. V. 35. № 11: 109242. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109242.
  62. Shestopalova L., Bőhm T.M., Bendixen A. et al. Do audio-visual motion cues promote segregation of auditory streams? // Front. Neurosci. 2014. V. 8: 64. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00064.
  63. Snyder J.S., Alain C. Toward a neurophysiological theory of auditory stream segregation // Psychol. Bull. 2007. V. 133. № 5. P. 780–799. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.780.
  64. Stuckenberg M.V., Nayak C.V., Meyer B.T. et al. Age effects on concurrent speech segregation by onset asynchrony // J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2019. V. 62. № 1. P. 177–189. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-18-0064.
  65. Sussman E.S. Auditory Scene Analysis: An Attention Perspective // J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2017. V. 60. P. 2989–3000. doi: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-H-17-0041
  66. Sussman E.S., Chen S., Sussman-Fort J., Din- ces E. The five myths of MMN: Redefining how to use MMN in basic and clinical research // Brain Topogr. 2014. V. 27. № 4. P. 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-013-0326-6.
  67. Sussman E.S., Ritter W., Vaughan H.G. An investigation of the auditory streaming effect using event-related brain potentials // Psychophysiol. 1999. V. 36. № 1. P. 22–34.
  68. Szalárdy O., Bendixen A., Tóth D., Denham S.L., Winkler I. Modulation frequency difference acts as a primitive cue for auditory stream segregation // Learn. Percept. 5. Suppl. 2. 2013a. P. 149–161. doi: 10.1556/LP.5.2013.Suppl2.9.
  69. Szalárdy O., Bőhm T.M., Bendixen A., Wink- ler I. Event-related potential correlates of sound organization: Early sensory and late cognitive effects // Biol. Psychol. 2013b. V. 93. P. 97–104. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.01.015.
  70. Teki S., Chait M., Kumar S., von Kriegstein K., Griffiths T.D. Brain bases for auditory stimulus-driven figure-ground segregation // J. Neurosci. 2011. V. 31. P. 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3788-10.2011.
  71. Teki S., Chait M., Kumar S., Shamma S., Grif- fiths T.D. Segregation of complex acoustic scenes based on temporal coherence // eLife. 2013. 2:e00699. doi: 10.7554/eLife.00699.
  72. Teki S., Barascud N., Picard S., Payne C., Grif- fiths T.D., Chait M. Neural correlates of auditory figure-ground segregation based on temporal coherence // Cereb. Cortex. 2016. V. 26. № 9. P. 3669–3680. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhw173.
  73. Tóth B., Farkas D., Urbán G. et al. Attention and speech-processing related functional brain networks activated in a multispeaker environ- ment // PLoS One 14(2): e0212754. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212754.
  74. Tóth B., Kocsis Z., Háden G.P., Szerafin Á., Shinn-Cunningham B.G., Winkler I. EEG signatures accompanying auditory figure-ground segrega- tion // Neuroimage. 2016. V. 141. P. 108–119. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.07.028.
  75. Van Noorden L.P.A.S. Temporal coherence in the perception of tone sequences // PhD. Eindhoven University of Technology. Leiden. The Netherlands. 1975.
  76. Vliegen J., Oxenham A.J. Sequential stream segregation in the absence of spectral cues // J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1999. V. 105. P. 339–346.
  77. Weise A., Schröger E., Bendixen A. The processing of concurrent sounds based on inharmonicity and asynchronous onsets: An object-related negativity (ORN) study // Brain Res. 2012. V. 1439. P. 73–81. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.12.044.
  78. Winkler I., Denham S.L., Nelken I. Modeling the auditory scene: Predictive regularity representations and perceptual objects // Trends Cogn. Sci. 2009. V. 13. P. 532–540. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.003.
  79. Winkler I., Denham S., Mill R., Bőhm T.M., Bendixen A. Multistability in auditory stream segregation: A predictive coding view // Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2012. V. 367. P. 1001–1012. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0359.
  80. Winkler I., Takegata R., Sussmann E. Event-related brain potentials reveal multiple stages in the perceptual organization of sound // Cogn. Brain Res. 2005. V. 25. P. 291–299. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.06.005.

Қосымша файлдар

Қосымша файлдар
Әрекет
1. JATS XML
Жүктеу

© Russian Academy of Sciences, 2025

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».