Technology

Different categories of living and non-living sound-sources activate distinct cortical networks

Description
Different categories of living and non-living sound-sources activate distinct cortical networks
Categories
Published
of 26
4
Categories
Published
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Similar Documents
Share
Transcript
  Different categories of living and non-living sound-sourcesactivate distinct cortical networks Lauren R. Engel a,b,c, Chris Frum a,b,c, Aina Puce b,d,e, Nathan A. Walker a,b,c, and James W.Lewis a,b,c a Sensory Neuroscience Research Center, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506 b Center for Advanced Imaging, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506 c Departments of Physiology and Pharmacology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506 d Department of Radiology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506 e Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. Abstract With regard to hearing perception, it remains unclear as to whether, or the extent to which, differentconceptual categories of real-world sounds and related categorical knowledge are differentiallyrepresented in the brain. Semantic knowledge representations are reported to include the majordivisions of living versus non-living things, plus more specific categories including animals, tools,biological motion, faces, and places—categories typically defined by their characteristic visualfeatures. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to identify brain regionsshowing preferential activity to four categories of action sounds, which included non-vocal humanand animal actions (living), plus mechanical and environmental sound-producing actions (non-living). The results showed a striking antero-posterior division in cortical representations for soundsproduced by living versus non-living sources. Additionally, there were several significant differencesby category, depending on whether the task was category-specific (e.g. human or not) versus non-specific (detect end-of-sound). In general, (1) human-produced sounds yielded robust activation inthe bilateral posterior superior temporal sulci independent of task. Task demands modulatedactivation of left-lateralized fronto-parietal regions, bilateral insular cortices, and subcortical regionspreviously implicated in observation-execution matching, consistent with “embodied” and mirror-neuron network representations subserving recognition. (2) Animal action sounds preferentiallyactivated the bilateral posterior insulae. (3) Mechanical sounds activated the anterior superiortemporal gyri and parahippocampal cortices. (4) Environmental sounds preferentially activateddorsal occipital and medial parietal cortices. Overall, this multi-level dissociation of networks forpreferentially representing distinct sound-source categories provides novel support for groundedcognition models that may underlie organizational principles for hearing perception. Correspondence should be addressed to : James W. Lewis, Ph.D., Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, PO Box 9229, WestVirginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, Phone: 304-293-1517, Fax: 304-293-3850, jlewis@hsc.wvu.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customerswe are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resultingproof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which couldaffect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author Manuscript  Neuroimage . Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 October 1. Published in final edited form as:  Neuroimage . 2009 October 1; 47(4): 17781791. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.041. N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t    Keywords Auditory system; fMRI; grounded cognition; action recognition; biological motion; categoryspecificity Introduction Human listeners learn to readily recognize real-world sounds, typically in the context of producing sounds by their own motor actions and/or viewing the actions of agents associatedwith the sound production. These skills are honed throughout childhood as one learns todistinguish between different conceptual categories of objects that produce characteristicsounds. Object knowledge representations have received considerable scientific study for overa century. In particular, neuropsychological lesion studies, and more recently neuroimagingstudies, have identified brain areas involved in retrieving distinct conceptual categories of knowledge including living versus non-living things (Warrington and Shallice, 1984; Hillisand Caramazza, 1991; Silveri et al., 1997; Lu et al., 2002; Zannino et al., 2006). More specificobject categories reported to be differentially represented in cortex include animals, tools,fruits/vegetables, faces, and places (Warrington and Shallice, 1984; Moore and Price, 1999;Kanwisher, 2000; Haxby et al., 2001; Caramazza and Mahon, 2003; Damasio et al., 2004;Martin, 2007). Traditionally, these studies have been heavily visually biased, using photos,diagrams, or actual objects, or alternatively using visual verbal stimuli. However, many aspectsof object knowledge are derived from interactions with objects, imparting salient multisensoryqualities or properties to objects, such as their characteristic sounds, which are qualities thatmay significantly contribute to knowledge representations in the brain (Mesulam, 1998; Adamsand Janata, 2002; Tyler et al., 2004; Canessa et al., 2007). However, due to the inherentlydifferent nature of acoustic versus visual input, some fundamentally different sensory orsensorimotor properties might drive the central nervous system to segment, process, andrepresent different categories of object or action-source knowledge in the brain. This in turnmay lead to, or be associated with, distinct network representations that show category-specificity, thereby reflecting a gross level of organization for conceptual systems that maysubserve auditory perception.The production of sound necessarily implies some form of motion or action. In vision, differenttypes of motion, such as “biological motion” (e.g. point light displays depicting humanarticulated walking) versus rigid body motion (Johansson, 1973), have been shown to lead toactivation along different cortical pathways (Shiffrar et al., 1997; Pavlova and Sokolov,2000; Wheaton et al., 2001; Beauchamp et al., 2002; Grossman and Blake, 2002; Thompsonet al., 2005). Results from this visual literature indicate that when one observes biologicalactions, such as viewing another person walking, neural processing leads to probabilisticmatches to our own motor repertoire of actions (e.g. schemas), thereby “embodying” the visualsensory input to provide us with a sense of meaning behind the action (Liberman and Mattingly,1985; Norman and Shallice, 1986; Corballis, 1992; Nishitani and Hari, 2000; Buccino et al.,2001; Barsalou et al., 2003; Kilner et al., 2004; Aglioti et al., 2008; Cross et al., 2008).Embodied or “grounded” cognition models more generally posit that object concepts aregrounded in perception and action, such that modal simulations (e.g. thinking about sensoryevents) and situated actions, should, at least in part, be represented in the same networksactivated during the perception of sensory and sensory-motor events (Broadbent, 1878;Lissauer, 1890/1988; Barsalou, 1999; Gallese and Lakoff, 2005; Beauchamp and Martin,2007; Canessa et al., 2007; Barsalou, 2008).In the realm of auditory processing, several studies have shown that the perception of actionsounds produced by human conspecifics differentially activate distinct brain networks, notably Engel et al.Page 2  Neuroimage . Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 October 1. N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t    in motor-related regions such as the left intraparietal lobule (IPL) and left inferior frontal gyri(IFG). This includes comparisons of human-performable versus non-performable actionsounds (Pizzamiglio et al., 2005), hand-tools versus animal vocalizations (Lewis et al., 2005;Lewis et al., 2006), hand and mouth action sounds relative to environmental and scrambledsounds (Gazzola et al., 2006), expert piano players versus naïve listeners hearing piano playing(Lahav et al., 2007), attending to footsteps versus onset of noise (Bidet-Caulet et al., 2005),and hand, mouth and vocal sounds versus environmental sounds (Galati et al., 2008). Consistentwith studies of macaque monkey auditory mirror-neurons (Kohler et al. , 2002; Keysers et al. , 2003), human neuroimaging studies implicate the left IPL and left IFG as major componentsof a putative mirror-neuron system, which may serve to represent the goal or intention behindobserved actions (Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004; Pizzamiglio et al., 2005; Gazzola et al.,2006; Galati et al., 2008). Thus, these regions may subserve aspects of auditory perception, inthat human-produced (conspecific) sounds may be associated with, or processed along,networks related to motor production.Other regions involved in sound action processing include the left posterior superior temporalsulcus and middle temporal gyri, here collectively referred to as the pSTS/pMTG complex.These regions have a role in recognizing natural sounds, in contrast to backward-played,unrecognizable control sounds (Lewis et al., 2004). They are generally reported to be moreselective for human action sounds (Bidet-Caulet et al., 2005; Gazzola et al., 2006; Doehrmannet al., 2008), including the processing of hand-tool manipulation sounds relative tovocalizations (Lewis et al., 2005; Lewis et al., 2006). The pSTS/pMTG complexes are alsoimplicated in audio-visual interactions, and may play a general perceptual role in transformingthe dynamic temporal features of auditory information together with spatially and temporallydynamic visual information into a common reference frame and neural code (Avillac et al.,2005; Taylor et al., 2009; Lewis, under review). However, whether, or the extent to which,such functions may apply to other types or categories of complex real-world action soundsremains unclear.Although neuroimaging studies of human action sound representations are steadily increasing,to our knowledge none have systematically dissociated activation networks for conceptuallydistinct categories of living (or “biological”) versus non-living (non-biological) action sounds(Fig. 1A). Nor have there been reports examining different sub-categories of action sounds,using a wide range of acoustically well-matched stimuli, drawing on analogies to category-specific processing studies reported for the visual and conceptual systems (Allison et al.,1994;Kanwisher et al., 1997;Caramazza and Mahon, 2003;Hasson et al., 2003;Martin, 2007).Thus, the objective of the present study, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),was to explore category-specificity from the perspective of hearing perception, and further sub-divide conceptual categories of sounds including those produced by humans (conspecifics)versus non-human animals, and mechanical versus environmental sources. We explicitlyexcluded vocalizations, as they are known to evoke activation along relatively specializedpathways related to speech perception (Belin et al., 2000;Fecteau et al., 2004;Lewis et al.,2009). Our first hypothesis was that human action sounds, in contrast to other conceptuallydistinct action sounds, would evoke activation in motor-related networks associated withembodiment of the sound-source, but with dependence on the listening task. Our secondhypothesis was that other action sound categories would also show preferential activation alongdistinct networks, revealing high-level auditory processing stages and association cortices thatmay subserve multisensory or amodal action knowledge representations. Both of thesehypotheses, if verified, would provide support for grounded cognition theories for auditoryaction and object knowledge representations. Engel et al.Page 3  Neuroimage . Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 October 1. N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t    Materials and methods Participants We tested 32 participants (all right-handed, 19–29 years of age, 17 women). Twenty weretested in the main scanning paradigm (Experiment #1), and 12 were tested in a control paradigm(Experiment #2). All participants were native English speakers with no previous history of neurological, psychiatric disorders, or auditory impairment, and had a self-reported normalrange of hearing. Informed consent was obtained for all participants following guidelinesapproved by the West Virginia University Institutional Review Board. Sound stimulus creation and presentation The stimulus set consisted of 256 sound stimuli compiled from professional compilations(Sound Ideas, Inc, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada), including action sounds from fourconceptual categories: human, animal, mechanical, and environmental (HAME; see Appendix1). All the human and animal sounds analyzed were explicitly devoid of vocalizations or vocal-related content (10 were excluded  post hoc ) to avoid potentially confounding activation inpathways specialized for vocalizations (Belin et al., 2000; Lewis et al., 2009). Mechanicalsounds were selected that were judged as not being directly attributed to a human agent instigating the action. Sound stimuli were all edited to 3.0 ± 0.5 second duration, matched fortotal root mean squared power, and onset/offset ramped 25 msec (Cool Edit Pro, SyntrilliumSoftware Co., owned by Adobe). Sound stimuli were converted to one channel (mono,44.1kHz, 16-bit) but presented to both ears, thereby removing any binaural spatial cues.Five additional participants, not included in the fMRI studies, and naïve to the purpose of theexperiment, assessed numerous sound stimuli, presented via a personal computer andheadphones, to determine that they could reliably be identified as being generated by a humanor not: They responded using a Likert scale of 1–5 as being created by a human (5) or by anon-human (1), and stimuli that averaged a score greater than 4 were used for the fMRI scanningparadigm. The other three categories were similarly screened (three participants) such that mostcould be unambiguously recognized as belonging to one of the four categories, retaining a totalof 64 sounds in each category.For the fMRI study, high fidelity sound stimuli were delivered using a Windows PC computer,with Presentation software (version 11.1, Neurobehavioral Systems Inc.) via a sound mixerand MR compatible electrostatic ear buds (STAX SRS-005 Earspeaker system; Stax LTD.,Gardena, CA), worn under sound attenuating ear muffs. Stimulus loudness was set to acomfortable level for each participant, typically 80–83 dB C-weighted in each ear (Brüel &Kjær 2239a sound meter), as assessed at the time of scanning. Scanning paradigms Experiment #1, involving a category-specific listening task, consisted of 8 separate runs, acrosswhich the 256 sound stimuli and 64 silent events were presented in pseudorandom order, withno more than two silent events presented in a row. Participants (n=20) were given explicitinstructions, just prior to the scanning session, to carefully focus on the sound stimulus and todetermine silently whether or not a human was directly involved with the production of theaction sound. None of the participants had heard the specific stimuli, and nor were they awareof the nature of the study and that the other three action sound categories (animal, mechanical,and environmental) were parameters of interest. We elected to have participants not performany overt response task to avoid activation due to motor output (e.g. pushing a button or overtlynaming sounds). However, we wanted to be certain that they were alert and attending to thecontent of the sound content (human or not) to a level where they were “recognizing” the sound,as further assessed by their post-scanning responses (see below). Engel et al.Page 4  Neuroimage . Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 October 1. N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t    Experiment #2, involving a category-non-specific task, was conducted under identicalscanning conditions and used the same stimuli as Experiment #1. However, these participants(n=12) were instructed to press a response box button immediately at the offset of each soundstimulus—they were unaware that category-specific sound processing was the parameter of interest. Magnetic resonance imaging and data analysis Scanning was conducted on a 3 Tesla General Electric Horizon HD MRI scanner using aquadrature bird-cage head coil. We acquired whole-head, spiral in and out imaging of blood-oxygenated level dependent (BOLD) signals (Glover and Law, 2001), using a clustered-acquisition fMRI design which allowed stimuli to be presented without scanner noise (Edmisteret al., 1999; Hall et al., 1999). A sound or silent event was presented every 9.3 seconds, and6.8 seconds after event onset BOLD signals were collected as 28 axial brain slices (includingthe dorsal-most portion of the brain) with 1.875 × 1.875 × 4.00 mm 3  spatial resolution (TE =36 msec, OPTR = 2.3 sec volume acquisition, FOV = 24 mm). The presentation of each stimulusevent was triggered by a TTL pulse from the MRI scanner. After the completion of thefunctional imaging scans, whole brain T1-weighted anatomical MR images were collectedusing a spoiled GRASS pulse sequence (SPGR, 1.2 mm slices with 0.9375 × 0.9375 mm 2  in-plane resolution).Immediately after the scanning session, each participant listened to all the stimuli again inexperimental order outside the scanner, indicating by keyboard button press whether he or shethought the action sound was produced by a (1) human, (2) animal, (3) mechanical, or (4)environmental source when srcinally heard in the scanner. These data were subsequently usedto censor out brain responses to incorrectly categorized sounds (Experiments #1 and #2), andsubsequently used for error-trial analyses in Experiment #1.Acquired data were analyzed using AFNI software (http://afni.nimh.nih.gov/) and related plug-ins (Cox, 1996). For each participant’s data, the eight scans were concatenated into a singletime series and brain volumes were motion corrected for global head translations and rotations.Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to compare a variety of cross-categoricalBOLD brain responses. BOLD signals were converted to percent signal change on a voxel-by-voxel basis relative to responses to silent events. For the primary analyses, only correctlycategorized sounds were utilized. The first regression model tested for voxels showingsignificant differential responses to living (human plus animal) relative to non-living(mechanical plus environmental) sounds. The subsequent analyses entailed pair-wisecomparisons and conjunctions across three or four of the categories of sound (e.g. (M>H) ∩ (M>A) ∩  (M>E)) to identify voxels showing preferential activation to any one of the fourcategories of sound or subsets therein. For both analyses, multiple regression coefficients werefirst spatially low-pass filtered (4 mm box filter), and subjected to t-test and thresholded. Forwhole-brain correction, an analysis of the functional noise in the BOLD signal across voxelswas estimated using AFNI plug-ins 3dDeconvolve and AlphaSim, yielding and estimated 2.4mm spatial smoothness (full-width half-max Gaussian filter widths) in x, y, and z dimensions.Applying a minimum cluster size of 12 (or 5) voxels, together with p<0.02 (or p<0.001) voxel-wise t-test, yielded a whole-brain correction at α <0.05. The mis-categorized sounds weresubsequently analyzed separately as error trials, using a multiple linear regression to modelresponses that corresponded with the erroneously reported  perception  of human-producedversus non-human-produced sounds.Anatomical and functional imaging data were transformed into standardized Talairachcoordinate space (Talairach and Tournoux, 1988). Data were then projected onto the PALSatlas cortical surface models (in AFNI-tlrc) using Caret software (http://brainmap.wustl.edu)for illustration purposes (Van Essen et al., 2001; Van Essen, 2003). Portions of these data can Engel et al.Page 5  Neuroimage . Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 October 1. N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  N I  H -P A A  u t  h  or M an u s  c r i   p t  
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x