Sound frequency affects the auditory motion-onset response in humans
The current study examines the modulation of the motion-onset response based on the frequency-range of sound stimuli. Delayed motion-onset and stationary stimuli were presented in a free-field by sequentially activating loudspeakers on an azimuthal plane keeping the natural percept of externalized sound presentation. The sounds were presented in low- or high-frequency ranges and had different motion direction within each hemifield. Difference waves were calculated by contrasting the moving and stationary sounds to isolate the motion-onset responses. Analyses carried out at the peak amplitudes and latencies on the difference waves showed that the early part of the motion response (cN1) was modulated by the frequency range of the sounds with stronger amplitudes elicited by stimuli with high frequency range. Subsequent post hoc analysis of the normalized amplitude of the motion response confirmed the previous finding by excluding the possibility that the frequency range had an overall effect on the waveform, and showing that this effect was instead limited to the motion response. These results support the idea of a modular organization of the motion-onset response with the processing of primary sound motion characteristics being reflected in the early part of the response. Also, the article highlights the importance of specificity in auditory stimulus design.
KeywordsAuditory motion Human Event-related potential Difference wave Frequency
The authors would like to thank Dr. Alexandra Ludwig on valuable feedback on a previous version of the article, Dr. Philipp Ruhnau for helpful discussions on the revision, Dr. Reshanne R. Reeder for proofreading the manuscript and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on the manuscript. The study was supported by a grant from the IMPRS NeuroCom of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (Leipzig, Germany) and by the Erasmus Mundus student exchange network in Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience (ACN).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Getzmann S (2009) Effect of auditory motion velocity on reaction time and cortical processes. Neuropsychologia 47:2625–2633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.05.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Krumbholz K, Hewson-Stoate N, Schönwiesner M (2007) Cortical response to auditory motion suggests an asymmetry in the reliance on inter-hemispheric connections between the left and right auditory cortices. J Neurophysiol 97:1649–1655. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00560.2006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Magezi DA, Buetler KA, Chouiter L, Annoni JM, Spierer L (2013) Electrical neuroimaging during auditory motion aftereffects reveals that auditory motion processing is motion sensitive but not direction selective. J Neurophysiol 109:321–331. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00625.2012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Middlebrooks JC, Green DM (1991) Sound localization by human listeners. Annu Rev Psychol 42:135–159. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.001031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ordonez-Gomez JD, Dunn JC, Arroyo-Rodriguez V, Mendez-Cardenas MG, Marquez-Arias A, Santillan-Doherty AM (2015) Role of emitter and severity of aggression influence the agonistic vocalizations of Geoffroy’s spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi). Int J Primatol 36:429–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-015-9833-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Polich J (1989) Habituation of P300 from auditory stimuli. Psychobiology 17(1):19–28Google Scholar
- Smulders FTY, Miller JO (2012) The lateralized readiness potential. In: Luck SJ, Kappenman ES (eds) The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 209–229Google Scholar