EEG Frequency-Tagging and Input–Output Comparison in Rhythm Perception
- 409 Downloads
The combination of frequency-tagging with electroencephalography (EEG) has recently proved fruitful for understanding the perception of beat and meter in musical rhythm, a common behavior shared by humans of all cultures. EEG frequency-tagging allows the objective measurement of input–output transforms to investigate beat perception, its modulation by exogenous and endogenous factors, development, and neural basis. Recent doubt has been raised about the validity of comparing frequency-domain representations of auditory rhythmic stimuli and corresponding EEG responses, assuming that it implies a one-to-one mapping between the envelope of the rhythmic input and the neural output, and that it neglects the sensitivity of frequency-domain representations to acoustic features making up the rhythms. Here we argue that these elements actually reinforce the strengths of the approach. The obvious fact that acoustic features influence the frequency spectrum of the sound envelope precisely justifies taking into consideration the sounds used to generate a beat percept for interpreting neural responses to auditory rhythms. Most importantly, the many-to-one relationship between rhythmic input and perceived beat actually validates an approach that objectively measures the input–output transforms underlying the perceptual categorization of rhythmic inputs. Hence, provided that a number of potential pitfalls and fallacies are avoided, EEG frequency-tagging to study input–output relationships appears valuable for understanding rhythm perception.
KeywordsEEG Frequency-tagging Rhythm and beat perception Auditory system Perceptual categorization Neural transform
S.N. is supported by an Australian Research Council (ARC) DECRA DE160101064 and FRSM 3.4558.12 Convention Grant from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (F.R.S.-FNRS) (to Pr. A. Mouraux). P.K. is supported by a Future Fellowship grant from the Australian Research Council (FT140101162).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
- Bruner JS (1957) Going beyond the information given. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Edelman GM (1978) The mindful brain: cortical organization and the group-selective theory of higher brain function. MIT Press, Cambridge (ISBN 9780262050203) Google Scholar
- Helmholtz H (1866) Concerning the perceptions in general. Translated by Southall JPC Treatise on physiological optics, vol III, 3rd edn., Dover, New York (1925 Opt Soc Am Sect. 26)Google Scholar
- Lerdahl F, Jackendoff Ray (1983) A generative theory of tonal music. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- McAuley JD (2010) Tempo and rhythm. In Jones MR et al (eds) Music perception, Springer handbook of auditory research 36, Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Nozaradan S, Schwartze M, Obermeier C, Kotz SA (2017b) Specific contributions of basal ganglia and cerebellum to the neural tracking of rhythm. Cortex, (In press) Google Scholar
- Rajendran VG, Garcia-Lazaro JA, Harper NS, Lesica NA, Schnupp JWH (2016) Asymmetry in neural responses to “on-beat” and “off-beat” sounds in the gerbil inferior colliculus. Proceedings of APAN XIV meeting San Diego, CA, USA, 2016Google Scholar
- Regan DM (1989) Human brain electrophysiology: evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar