Transcript Slide 1

Cognitive-Sensory Interaction in the Neural Encoding
of Music and Speech
www.flickr.com/samucleta
Nina Kraus
Northwestern
University
www.brainvolts.northwestern.edu
click on ‘neural encoding of music’
and watch slide show
Reading
Hearing in noise
perception
pitch/timing/timbre
perception
pitch/timing/timbre
use of phonology
vocabulary knowledge
working memory
attention
common
sensory
cognitive
ingredients
perception
pitch/timing/timbre
knowledge of melody,
harmony, rhythm
working memory
attention
Music
voice tagging
stream segregation
object formation
working memory
attention
Neural responses reflect stimulus
properties with sub-millisecond precision
“da”
Response
brainstem
musicians
nonmusicians
Magnitude (µV)
Musicians reflect these properties
more robustly, faster and more precisely
0.5
0
-0.5
50
100
Time (ms)
Parbery-Clark, Skoe, Kraus, J Neurosci, 2009; 29: 14100-7
Not a gain effect
Input isn’t just “bigger”
in musicians
Selective enhancement
of stimulus features!
www.flickr.com/wakajawaka
www.flickr.com/knett
www.flickr.com/davidmasters
www.flickr.com/aussiegall
Musicians are good at
extracting relevant
signals and patterns
from soundscape
This skill
transfers to
hearing speech
in noise
www.flickr.com/mikebaird
Parbery-Clark et al., J Neurosci 2009; 29: 14100-7, and Ear & Hearing 2009; 30: 653-61
Patterns
Fred, are
you there?
Right here,
Mary
Pulling speech from noise
involves tracking regularities
and the ability to utilize
patterns to derive relevance.
www.flickr.com/jamescridland
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Response to this “A” is better
A
B
A
C
A
D
D
A
B
than response to this “A”
…in good readers, good speech-in-noise perceivers, musicians
Chandrasekaran et al., Neuron 2009; 64: 311-19
Strait et al., in preparation
Diminished
in clinical
populations
Chandrasekaran et al., 2009
Ahissar et al., 2006
Munchnik et al., 2004
Cognitive
influences
Wong et al., 2007
Shahin et al., 2009
Strait et al., in press
Gathercole et al., 2006
Working
Memory
Parbery-Clark et al., 2009
Chan et al., 1999
Strait et al., in press
Helenius et al., 2009
Utilizing
stimulus
regularities
Enhanced in
musicians
Helenius et al., 2009
Auditory mechanisms important
for
Reading
Linguistic
ability
Moreno et al., 2008
Hearing in
Noise
Parbery-Clark et al., 2009l
Chandrasekaran et al. 2009
Banai et al., 2009
Tallal et al., 1980
Neural fidelity
of stimulus
Wong et al., 2007
Mussachia et al., 2007
Lee et al., 2009
Parbery-Clark et al., 2009
Take Home Points
Specific endowments in musicians:
Musical training promotes specific neural refinements that reflect active
engagement with sound.
Transfer effects:
Active engagement with music impacts how sounds are processed for
language and emotion.
Mediated by processes that rely upon attentional and memory-intensive
processes common to speech and music.
Pattern detection:
Our sensory systems are primed to tune into regularities within the
stimulus stream – selectively enhancing relevant signals.
Protective effects:
Musical training leads to a highly adaptive system that (a) is more immune
disruption by background noise and (b) strengthens auditory processes
that underlie reading.
Musicians have perceptual and neural advantages
for processing auditory patterns important for
reading and hearing in noise.
These same neural processes are diminished
in clinical populations with dyslexia and
difficulty hearing in noise
Implication:
musical education to improve
everyday listening and
language tasks
www.flickr.com/pedrosimoes7
supported by NSF (SLC)
http://www.brainvolts.northwestern.edu
http://www.brainvolts.northwestern.edu
www.brainvolts.northwestern.edu
www.brainvolts.northwestern.edu