web analytics

Tag: Herrmann

Categories
Auditory Cortex Auditory Neuroscience Auditory Perception EEG / MEG Neural Oscillations Neural Phase Papers Perception Publications

New paper in press: Her­rmann, Hen­ry, Grigutsch & Obleser, The Jour­nal of Neu­ro­science [Update]

Oscil­la­to­ry Phase Dynam­ics in Neur­al Entrain­ment Under­pin Illu­so­ry Per­cepts of Time

Nat­ur­al sounds like speech and music inher­ent­ly vary in tem­po over time. Yet, con­tex­tu­al fac­tors such as vari­a­tions in the sound’s loud­ness or pitch influ­ence per­cep­tion of tem­po­ral rate change towards slow­ing down or speed­ing up.

A new MEG study by Björn Her­rmann, Mol­ly Hen­ry, Maren Grigutsch and Jonas Obleser asked for the neur­al oscil­la­to­ry dynam­ics that under­pin con­text-induced illu­sions in tem­po­ral rate change and found illu­so­ry per­cepts to be linked to changes in the neur­al phase pat­terns of entrained oscil­la­tions while the exact fre­quen­cy of the oscil­la­to­ry response was relat­ed to veridi­cal percepts.

The paper is in press and forth­com­ing in The Jour­nal of Neuroscience.

 

Update:

Paper is avail­able online.

Ref­er­ences

  • Her­rmann B, Hen­ry MJ, Grigutsch M, Obleser J. Oscil­la­to­ry phase dynam­ics in neur­al entrain­ment under­pin illu­so­ry per­cepts of time. J Neu­rosci. 2013 Oct 2;33(40):15799–809. PMID: 24089487. [Open with Read]
Categories
Auditory Neuroscience Auditory Perception Auditory Working Memory Executive Functions fMRI Papers Perception Publications

New paper has been pub­lished in Cere­bral Cor­tex by Hen­ry, Her­rmann, & Obleser

When we lis­ten to sounds like speech and music, we have to make sense of dif­fer­ent acoustic fea­tures that vary simul­ta­ne­ous­ly along mul­ti­ple time scales. This means that we, as lis­ten­ers, have to selec­tive­ly attend to, but at the same time selec­tive­ly ignore, sep­a­rate but inter­twined fea­tures of a stimulus.

Brain regions associated with selective attending to and selective ignoring of temporal stimulus features.
Brain regions asso­ci­at­ed with selec­tive attend­ing to and selec­tive ignor­ing of tem­po­ral stim­u­lus fea­tures. (more)

A new­ly pub­lished fMRI study by Mol­ly Hen­ry, Björn Her­rmann, and Jonas Obleser found a net­work of brain regions that respond­ed oppo­site­ly to iden­ti­cal stim­u­lus char­ac­ter­is­tics depend­ing on whether they were rel­e­vant or irrel­e­vant, even when both stim­u­lus fea­tures involved atten­tion to time and tem­po­ral features.

You can check out the arti­cle here:

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/23/cercor.bht240.full

Ref­er­ences

  • Hen­ry MJ, Her­rmann B, Obleser J. Selec­tive Atten­tion to Tem­po­ral Fea­tures on Nest­ed Time Scales. Cereb Cor­tex. 2013 Aug 26. PMID: 23978652. [Open with Read]
Categories
Auditory Cortex Auditory Neuroscience Auditory Perception Clinical relevance EEG / MEG Evoked Activity Hearing Loss Papers Psychology Publications

New paper in press: Her­rmann et al., Hear­ing Research [Update]

Audi­to­ry fil­ter width affects response mag­ni­tude but not fre­quen­cy speci­fici­ty in audi­to­ry cortex

This is fan­tas­tic news on a fri­day morn­ing: Obleser lab Post­doc Björn Her­rmann teamed up with his fel­low Post­docs Math­ias Scharinger and Mol­ly Hen­ry to study how spec­tral analy­sis in the audi­to­ry periph­ery (termed fre­quen­cy selec­tiv­i­ty) relates to pro­cess­ing in audi­to­ry cor­tex (termed fre­quen­cy speci­fici­ty; see also Björns paper in J Neu­ro­phys­i­ol 2013).

Giv­ing this an age­ing and hear­ing loss per­spec­tive and build­ing on the con­cept of audi­to­ry fil­ters in the cochlea (Moore et al.), Björn found that  the over­all N1 ampli­tude of lis­ten­ers, but not their fre­quen­cy-spe­cif­ic neur­al adap­ta­tion pat­terns, is cor­re­lat­ed with the pass-band of the audi­to­ry filter.

This sug­gests that widened audi­to­ry fil­ters are com­pen­sat­ed for by a response gain in fre­quen­cy-spe­cif­ic areas of audi­to­ry cor­tex; the paper is in press and forth­com­ing in Hear­ing Research.

 

Update:

Paper is avail­able online.

Ref­er­ences

  • Her­rmann B, Hen­ry MJ, Scharinger M, Obleser J. Audi­to­ry fil­ter width affects response mag­ni­tude but not fre­quen­cy speci­fici­ty in audi­to­ry cor­tex. Hear Res. 2013 Oct;304:128–36. PMID: 23876524. [Open with Read]
Categories
Auditory Cortex Auditory Neuroscience EEG / MEG Papers Publications

New paper out: Her­rmann, Hen­ry, and Obleser in Jour­nal of Neurophysiology

In this study (avail­able online)

Fre­quen­cy-spe­cif­ic adap­ta­tion in human audi­to­ry cor­tex depends on the spec­tral vari­ance in the acoustic stimulation

we show that adap­ta­tion of neur­al respons­es in human audi­to­ry cor­tex to acoustic stim­u­la­tion is not fixed. Instead, the degree of co-adap­ta­tion in these tono­topi­cal­ly orga­nized brain regions varies (widens/tightens) with the spec­tral prop­er­ties of the acoustic stim­u­la­tion. We relate this to sen­so­ry mem­o­ry process­es and short-term plas­tic­i­ty which allows for the neur­al sys­tem to adjust to the acoustic prop­er­ties in the environment.

Ref­er­ences

  • Her­rmann B, Hen­ry MJ, Obleser J. Fre­quen­cy-spe­cif­ic adap­ta­tion in human audi­to­ry cor­tex depends on the spec­tral vari­ance in the acoustic stim­u­la­tion. J Neu­ro­phys­i­ol. 2013 Apr;109(8):2086–96. PMID: 23343904. [Open with Read]
Categories
Auditory Neuroscience Auditory Perception Editorial Notes EEG / MEG Neural Oscillations Neural Phase Papers Perception Publications

New paper out: Hen­ry & Her­rmann, Jour­nal of Neuroscience

Proud to announce that our post­docs Mol­ly Hen­ry and Björn Her­rmann just came out with a review/op piece in the Jour­nal of Neu­ro­science “jour­nal club” sec­tion, where only grad stu­dents or post­docs are allowed to author short review pieces.

A Pre­clud­ing Role of Low-Fre­quen­cy Oscil­la­tions for Audi­to­ry Per­cep­tion in a Con­tin­u­ous Pro­cess­ing Mode

The Jour­nal of Neu­ro­science, 5 Decem­ber 2012, 32(49): 17525–17527; doi: 10.1523/​JNEUROSCI.4456–12.2012

Mol­ly and Björn review (and com­ment on) an impor­tant paper by our friends and col­leagues Christoph Kayser and Benedikt Ng in the same jour­nal. Essen­tial­ly, they argue for the dis­tinc­tion of a con­tin­u­ous from an oscil­la­to­ry pro­cess­ing mode in lis­ten­ing, and pro­vide ten­ta­tive expla­na­tions of why some­times miss­es might be more mod­u­lat­ed by neur­al oscil­la­to­ry phase than hits. Con­grats, guys!

Ref­er­ences

  • Hen­ry MJ, Her­rmann B. A pre­clud­ing role of low-fre­quen­cy oscil­la­tions for audi­to­ry per­cep­tion in a con­tin­u­ous pro­cess­ing mode. J Neu­rosci. 2012 Dec 5;32(49):17525–7. PMID: 23223276. [Open with Read]
Categories
Neural Oscillations Papers Publications Speech

New paper out: “Don’t be enslaved by the enve­lope” – Com­ment on Giraud & Poep­pel (2012)

Today appears a com­ment / opin­ion arti­cle, with a tad bit of fresh evi­dence from our lab, that is main­ly a reply to Anne-Lise Giraud and David Poeppel’s recent “per­spec­tive” arti­cle on Neur­al oscil­la­tions in speech.

We loved that arti­cle, obvi­ous­ly, but after the ini­tial excite­ment, a few con­cerns stuck with us. In essence, the prob­lems are (i) how to define theta for the pur­pos­es of analysing speech com­pre­hen­sion process­es, (ii) not to over­ly focus on the speech enve­lope (i.e., not to neglect spec­tral / fine-struc­ture aspects of speech), and (iii) the unsolved chicken–egg prob­lem of how neur­al entrain­ment and speech intel­li­gi­bil­i­ty real­ly relate to each other.

But read for your­self (It’s pleas­ant­ly short!).

Ref­er­ences

  • Obleser J, Her­rmann B, Hen­ry MJ. Neur­al Oscil­la­tions in Speech: Don’t be Enslaved by the Enve­lope. Front Hum Neu­rosci. 2012 Aug 31;6:250. PMID: 22969717. [Open with Read]