Plasticity in neuromagnetic cortical responses suggests enhanced auditory object representation

BMC Neuroscience

Kelly L Tremblay¹  Shahab Jamali²  Bernhard Ross² 

[1] Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA;Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

关键词: Magnetoencephalography;    Auditory evoked response;    Auditory cortex;    Auditory object representation;    Perceptual learning;    Neural plasticity;   

Others  :  1131183
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2202-14-151

 received in 2013-11-05, accepted in 2013-11-27,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Auditory perceptual learning persistently modifies neural networks in the central nervous system. Central auditory processing comprises a hierarchy of sound analysis and integration, which transforms an acoustical signal into a meaningful object for perception. Based on latencies and source locations of auditory evoked responses, we investigated which stage of central processing undergoes neuroplastic changes when gaining auditory experience during passive listening and active perceptual training. Young healthy volunteers participated in a five-day training program to identify two pre-voiced versions of the stop-consonant syllable ‘ba’, which is an unusual speech sound to English listeners. Magnetoencephalographic (MEG) brain responses were recorded during two pre-training and one post-training sessions. Underlying cortical sources were localized, and the temporal dynamics of auditory evoked responses were analyzed.

Results

After both passive listening and active training, the amplitude of the P2m wave with latency of 200 ms increased considerably. By this latency, the integration of stimulus features into an auditory object for further conscious perception is considered to be complete. Therefore the P2m changes were discussed in the light of auditory object representation. Moreover, P2m sources were localized in anterior auditory association cortex, which is part of the antero-ventral pathway for object identification. The amplitude of the earlier N1m wave, which is related to processing of sensory information, did not change over the time course of the study.

Conclusion

The P2m amplitude increase and its persistence over time constitute a neuroplastic change. The P2m gain likely reflects enhanced object representation after stimulus experience and training, which enables listeners to improve their ability for scrutinizing fine differences in pre-voicing time. Different trajectories of brain and behaviour changes suggest that the preceding effect of a P2m increase relates to brain processes, which are necessary precursors of perceptual learning. Cautious discussion is required when interpreting the finding of a P2 amplitude increase between recordings before and after training and learning.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Ross et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Gilbert CD, Sigman M, Crist RE: The neural basis of perceptual learning. Neuron 2001, 31(5):681-697.
• [2]Recanzone GH, Schreiner CE, Merzenich MM: Plasticity in the frequency representation of primary auditory cortex following discrimination training in adult owl monkeys. J Neurosci 1993, 13(1):87-103.
• [3]Edeline J-M: Learning-induced physiological plasticity in the thalamo-cortical sensory systems: A critical evaluation of receptive field plasticity, map changes and their potential mechanisms. Prog Neurobiol 1999, 57(2):165-224.
• [4]Blake DT, Strata F, Churchland AK, Merzenich MM: Neural correlates of instrumental learning in primary auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002, 99(15):10114-10119.
• [5]Brown M, Irvine DRF, Park VN: Perceptual learning on an auditory frequency discrimination task by cats: Association with changes in primary auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex 2004, 14(9):952-965.
• [6]Tommerdahl M, Favorov OV, Whitsel BL: Dynamic representations of the somatosensory cortex. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2010, 34(2):160-170.
• [7]Dinse HR, Merzenich MM: Adaptation of inputs in the somatosensory system. In Perceptual Learning. Edited by Fahle M, Poggio T. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2002:19-42.
• [8]Fahle M: Perceptual learning: specificity versus generalization. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2005, 15(2):154-160.
• [9]Wright BA, Zhang Y: A review of the generalization of auditory learning. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009, 364(1515):301-311.
• [10]Syka J: Plastic changes in the central auditory system after hearing loss, restoration of function, and during learning. Physiol Rev 2002, 82(3):601-636.
• [11]Wright BA, Buonomano DV, Mahncke HW, Merzenich MM: Learning and generalization of auditory temporal-interval discrimination in humans. J Neurosci 1997, 17(10):3956-3963.
• [12]Karmarkar UR, Buonomano DV: Temporal specificity of perceptual learning in an auditory discrimination task. Learn Mem 2003, 10(2):141-147.
• [13]McClaskey CL, Pisoni DB, Carrell TD: Transfer of training of a new linguistic contrast in voicing. Percept Psychophys 1983, 34(4):323-330.
• [14]Tremblay K, Kraus N, Carrell TD, McGee T: Central auditory system plasticity: generalization to novel stimuli following listening training. J Acoust Soc Am 1997, 102(6):3762-3773.
• [15]Amitay S, Irwin A, Moore DR: Discrimination learning induced by training with identical stimuli. Nat Neurosci 2006, 9(11):1446-1448.
• [16]Nahum M, Nelken I, Ahissar M: Low-level information and high-level perception: the case of speech in noise. PLoS Biol 2008, 6(5):e126.
• [17]Ahissar M, Nahum M, Nelken I, Hochstein S: Reverse hierarchies and sensory learning. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009, 364(1515):285-299.
• [18]Trainor LJ, Shahin A, Roberts LE: Effects of musical training on the auditory cortex in children. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003, 999:506-513.
• [19]Pantev C, Ross B, Fujioka T, Trainor LJ, Schulte M, Schulz M: Music and learning-induced cortical plasticity. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003, 999:438-450.
• [20]Salmelin R: Clinical neurophysiology of language: the MEG approach. Clin Neurophysiol 2007, 118(2):237-254.
• [21]Fujioka T, Ross B, Kakigi R, Pantev C, Trainor LJ: One year of musical training affects development of auditory cortical-evoked fields in young children. Brain 2006, 129(Pt 10):2593-2608.
• [22]Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T, Ponton C, Otis B: Central auditory plasticity: changes in the N1-P2 complex after speech-sound training. Ear Hear 2001, 22(2):79-90.
• [23]Atienza M, Cantero JL, Dominguez-Marin E: The time course of neural changes underlying auditory perceptual learning. Learn Mem 2002, 9(3):138-150.
• [24]Tremblay KL, Inoue K, McClannahan K, Ross B: Repeated stimulus exposure alters the way sound is encoded in the human brain. PLoS ONE 2010, 5(4):e10283.
• [25]Pantev C, Oostenveld R, Engelien A, Ross B, Roberts LE, Hoke M: Increased auditory cortical representation in musicians. Nature 1998, 392(6678):811-814.
• [26]Pantev C, Roberts LE, Schulz M, Engelien A, Ross B: Timbre-specific enhancement of auditory cortical representations in musicians. Neuroreport 2001, 12(1):169-174.
• [27]Shahin A, Roberts LE, Pantev C, Trainor LJ, Ross B: Modulation of P2 auditory-evoked responses by the spectral complexity of musical sounds. Neuroreport 2005, 16(16):1781-1785.
• [28]Kuriki S, Kanda S, Hirata Y: Effects of musical experience on different components of MEG responses elicited by sequential piano-tones and chords. J Neurosci 2006, 26(15):4046-4053.
• [29]Liegeois-Chauvel C, Giraud K, Badier J-M, Marquis P, Chauvel P: Intracerebral evoked potentials in pitch perception reveal a functional asymmetry of the human auditory cortex. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2001, 930:117-132.
• [30]Knight RT, Hillyard SA, Woods DL, Neville HJ: The effects of frontal and temporal-parietal lesions on the auditory evoked potential in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1980, 50(1–2):112-124.
• [31]Roth WT, Krainz PL, Ford JM, Tinklenberg JR, Rothbart RM, Kopell BS: Parameters of temporal recovery of the human auditory evoked potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1976, 40(6):623-632.
• [32]Vaughan HG Jr, Ritter W, Simson R: Topographic analysis of auditory event-related potentials. Prog Brain Res 1980, 54:279-285.
• [33]Crowley KE, Colrain IM: A review of the evidence for P2 being an independent component process: Age, sleep and modality. Clin Neurophysiol 2004, 115(4):732-744.
• [34]Jääskeläinen IP, Ahveninen J, Bonmassar G, Dale AM, Ilmoniemi RJ, Levänen S, Lin FH, May P, Melcher J, Stufflebeam S, et al.: Human posterior auditory cortex gates novel sounds to consciousness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004, 101(17):6809-6814.
• [35]Steinschneider M, Schroeder CE, Arezzo JC, Vaughan HG Jr: Physiologic correlates of the voice onset time boundary in primary auditory cortex (A1) of the awake monkey: temporal response patterns. Brain Lang 1995, 48(3):326-340.
• [36]Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P: Effects of age and age-related hearing loss on the neural representation of speech cues. Clin Neurophysiol 2003, 114(7):1332-1343.
• [37]Näätänen R, Winkler I: The concept of auditory stimulus representation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychol Bull 1999, 125(6):826-859.
• [38]Ross B, Tremblay K: Stimulus experience modifies auditory neuromagnetic responses in young and older listeners. Hear Res 2009, 248(1–2):48-59.
• [39]Sheehan KA, McArthur GM, Bishop DV: Is discrimination training necessary to cause changes in the P2 auditory event-related brain potential to speech sounds? Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2005, 25(2):547-553.
• [40]Näätänen R, Picton T: The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 1987, 24(4):375-425.
• [41]Godey B, Schwartz D, de Graaf JB, Chauvel P, Liegeois-Chauvel C: Neuromagnetic source localization of auditory evoked fields and intracerebral evoked potentials: a comparison of data in the same patients. Clin Neurophysiol 2001, 112(10):1850-1859.
• [42]Lobaugh N, West R, Mcintosh AR: Spatiotemporal analysis of experimental differences in event-related potential data with partial least squares. Psychophysiology 2001, 38(3):517-530.
• [43]Demany L: Perceptual learning in frequency discrimination. J Acoust Soc Am 1985, 78(3):1118-1120.
• [44]Carcagno S, Plack CJ: Subcortical plasticity following perceptual learning in a pitch discrimination task. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2011, 12(1):89-100.
• [45]Wright BA, Fitzgerald MB: Different patterns of human discrimination learning for two interaural cues to sound-source location. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001, 98(21):12307-12312.
• [46]Tremblay KL, Inoue K, McClannahan K, Ross B: Repeated stimulus exposure alters the way sound is encoded in the human brain. PLoS One 2010., 5(4)
• [47]Atienza M, Cantero JL, Stickgold R: Posttraining sleep enhances automaticity in perceptual discrimination. J Cogn Neurosci 2004, 16(1):53-64.
• [48]Ben-David BM, Campeanu S, Tremblay KL, Alain C: Auditory evoked potentials dissociate rapid perceptual learning from task repetition without learning. Psychophysiology 2010, 48(0036):797-807.
• [49]Seitz AR, Dinse HR: A common framework for perceptual learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2007, 17(2):148-153.
• [50]Rauschecker JP: Cortical processing of complex sounds. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1998, 8(4):516-521.
• [51]Kaas JH, Hackett TA: Subdivisions of auditory cortex and levels of processing in primates. Audiol Neurootol 1998, 3(2–3):73-85.
• [52]Felleman DJ, Van Essen DC: Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex 1991, 1(1):1-47.
• [53]Batra R, Kuwada S, Fitzpatrick DC: Sensitivity to interaural temporal disparities of low- and high-frequency neurons in the superior olivary complex. II. Coincidence detection. J Neurophysiol 1997, 78(3):1237-1247.
• [54]Zatorre RJ, Belin P: Spectral and temporal processing in human auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex 2001, 11(10):946-953.
• [55]Eggermont JJ: Representation of a voice onset time continuum in primary auditory cortex of the cat. J Acoust Soc Am 1995, 98(2 I):911-920.
• [56]Horev N, Most T, Pratt H: Categorical perception of speech (VOT) and analogous non-speech (FOT) signals: behavioral and electrophysiological correlates. Ear Hear 2007, 28(1):111-128.
• [57]Marslen-Wilson WD: Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 1987, 25(1–2):71-102.
• [58]Kubovy M, Van Valkenburg D: Auditory and visual objects. Cognition 2001, 80(1–2):97-126.
• [59]Griffiths TD, Warren JD: What is an auditory object? Nat Rev Neurosci 2004, 5(11):887-892.
• [60]Hari R, Pelizzone M, Makela JP, Hallstrom J, Leinonen L, Lounasmaa OV: Neuromagnetic responses of the human auditory cortex to on- and offsets of noise bursts. Audiology 1987, 26(1):31-43.
• [61]Rauschecker JP, Tian B: Mechanisms and streams for processing of “what” and “where” in auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000, 97(22):11800-11806.
• [62]Ahveninen J, Jääskeläinen IP, Raij T, Bonmassar G, Devore S, Hämälainen M, Levänen S, Lin F-H, Sams M, Shinn-Cunningham BG, et al.: Task-modulated “what” and “where” pathways in human auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006, 103(39):14608-14613.
• [63]Lomber SG, Malhotra S: Double dissociation of ‘what’ and ‘where’ processing in auditory cortex. Nat Neurosci 2008, 11(5):609-616.
• [64]Alain C, Arnott SR, Hevenor S, Graham S, Grady CL: “What” and “where” in the human auditory system. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001, 98(21):12301-12306.
• [65]Arnott SR, Binns MA, Grady CL, Alain C: Assessing the auditory dual-pathway model in humans. Neuroimage 2004, 22(1):401-408.
• [66]Leaver AM, Rauschecker JP: Cortical representation of natural complex sounds: effects of acoustic features and auditory object category. J Neurosci 2010, 30(22):7604-7612.
• [67]Poeppel D: The analysis of speech in different temporal integration windows: cerebral lateralization as ‘asymmetric sampling in time’. Speech Commun 2003, 41(1):245-255.
• [68]Zatorre RJ, Bouffard M, Belin P: Sensitivity to auditory object features in human temporal neocortex. J Neurosci 2004, 24(14):3637-3642.
• [69]Wetzel W, Ohl FW, Scheich H: Global versus local processing of frequency-modulated tones in gerbils: an animal model of lateralized auditory cortex functions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008, 105(18):6753-6758.
• [70]Ohl FW, Scheich H, Freeman WJ: Change in pattern of ongoing cortical activity with auditory category learning. Nature 2001, 412(6848):733-736.
• [71]Fritz J, Shamma S, Elhilali M, Klein D: Rapid task-related plasticity of spectrotemporal receptive fields in primary auditory cortex. Nat Neurosci 2003, 6(11):1216-1223.
• [72]Edeline JM, Pham P, Weinberger NM: Rapid development of learning-induced receptive field plasticity in the auditory cortex. Behav Neurosci 1993, 107(4):539-551.
• [73]Weinberger NM: Learning-induced changes of auditory receptive fields. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1993, 3(4):570-577.
• [74]Seppänen M, Hämäläinen J, Pesonen AK, Tervaniemi M: Music training enhances rapid neural plasticity of N1 and P2 source activation for unattended sounds. Front Hum Neurosci 2012, 6(43):1-13.
• [75]Alain C, Snyder JS: Age-related differences in auditory evoked responses during rapid perceptual learning. Clin Neurophysiol 2008, 119(2):356-366.
• [76]Brattico E, Tervaniemi M, Picton TW: Effects of brief discrimination-training on the auditory N1 wave. Neuroreport 2003, 14(18):2489-2492.
• [77]Hansen JC, Hillyard SA: Endogenous brain potentials associated with selective auditory attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1980, 49(3–4):277-290.
• [78]Näätänen R, Gaillard AW, Mantysalo S: Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychol (Amst) 1978, 42(4):313-329.
• [79]Näätänen R, Michie PT: Early selective-attention effects on the evoked potential: a critical review and reinterpretation. Biol Psychol 1979, 8(2):81-136.
• [80]Michie PT, Solowij N, Crawford JM, Glue LC: The effects of between-source discriminability on attended and unattended auditory ERPs. Psychophysiology 1993, 30(2):205-220.
• [81]Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T: The time course of auditory perceptual learning: neurophysiological changes during speech-sound training. Neuroreport 1998, 9(16):3557-3560.
• [82]Tremblay KL, Kraus N: Auditory training induces asymmetrical changes in cortical neural activity. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2002, 45(3):564-572.
• [83]Vrba J, Robinson SE: Signal processing in magnetoencephalography. Methods 2001, 25(2):249-271.
• [84]Lagerlund TD, Sharbrough FW, Busacker NE: Spatial filtering of multichannel electroencephalographic recordings through principal component analysis by singular value decomposition. J Clin Neurophysiol 1997, 14(1):73-82.
• [85]Darvas F, Rautiainen M, Pantazis D, Baillet S, Benali H, Mosher JC, Garnero L, Leahy RM: Investigations of dipole localization accuracy in MEG using the bootstrap. Neuroimage 2005, 25(2):355-368.
• [86]Ross B, Borgmann C, Draganova R, Roberts LE, Pantev C: A high-precision magnetoencephalographic study of human auditory steady-state responses to amplitude-modulated tones. J Acoust Soc Am 2000, 108(2):679-691.
• [87]Tesche CD, Uusitalo MA, Ilmoniemi RJ, Huotilainen M, Kajola M, Salonen O: Signal-space projections of MEG data characterize both distributed and well-localized neuronal sources. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995, 95(3):189-200.
• [88]Van Veen BD, van Drongelen W, Yuchtman M, Suzuki A: Localization of brain electrical activity via linearly constrained minimum variance spatial filtering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1997, 44(9):867-880.
• [89]Cheyne D, Bakhtazad L, Gaetz W: Spatiotemporal mapping of cortical activity accompanying voluntary movements using an event-related beamforming approach. Hum Brain Mapp 2006, 27(3):213-229.
• [90]Robinson SE, Vrba J: Functional neuroimaging by synthetic aperture magnetometry. Sendai: Tokoku University Press; 1999:302-305. [11th International Conference on Biomagnetism: 1999]
• [91]McCubbin J, Yee T, Vrba J, Robinson SE, Murphy P, Eswaran H, Preissl H: Bootstrap significance of low SNR evoked response. J Neurosci Methods 2008, 168(1):265-272.
• [92]Ross B, Hillyard SA, Picton TW: Temporal dynamics of selective attention during dichotic listening. Cereb Cortex 2010, 20(6):1360-1371.
• [93]Holmes CJ, Hoge R, Collins L, Woods R, Toga AW, Evans AC: Enhancement of MR images using registration for signal averaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998, 22(2):324-333.
• [94]Cox RW: AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. Comput Biomed Res 1996, 29(3):162-173.
• [95]Krishnan A, Williams LJ, McIntosh AR, Abdi H: Partial Least Squares (PLS) methods for neuroimaging: a tutorial and review. Neuroimage 2011, 56(2):455-475.
• [96]McIntosh AR, Lobaugh NJ: Partial least squares analysis of neuroimaging data: applications and advances. Neuroimage 2004, 23(Suppl 1):S250-S263.
• [97]Fujioka T, Zendel B, Ross B: Endogenous neuromagnetic activity for mental hierarchy of timing. J Neurosci 2010, 30(9):3458-3466.