Piano tones evoke stronger magnetic fields than pure tones or noise, both in musicians and non-musicians
Regarding the net firing rate of the auditory nerve, the strongest response is to be expected when the input energy is spread as evenly as possible over the cochlea rather than being concentrated at a particular location. In some respects, this effect seems to be preserved up to the auditory cortex,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Fla.), 2006-04, Vol.30 (3), p.927-937 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 937 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 927 |
container_title | NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) |
container_volume | 30 |
creator | Lütkenhöner, Bernd Seither-Preisler, Annemarie Seither, Stefan |
description | Regarding the net firing rate of the auditory nerve, the strongest response is to be expected when the input energy is spread as evenly as possible over the cochlea rather than being concentrated at a particular location. In some respects, this effect seems to be preserved up to the auditory cortex, but conflicting results have been reported as well. Here, we compared the auditory evoked fields (AEF) elicited by a pure tone and two sounds causing a more wide-spread cochlear activation: a piano tone as a representative of a complex tone, and bandpass noise. The stimuli had the same intensity (60 dB above threshold), and the center frequency of the noise corresponded to the fundamental frequency of the tones (1047 Hz, two octaves above middle C). Among the 26 subjects were 11 musicians and 11 persons who never played an instrument. At a latency of about 50 ms (wave P50m), the piano tone and the noise yielded stronger responses than the pure tone, in accordance with the concepts about the auditory periphery. By contrast, around 100 ms (wave N100m), the noise clearly elicited the smallest response, whereas the strongest response was elicited again by the piano tone. Musicians and non-musicians did not significantly differ concerning the responses to pure tones and piano tones. Thus, previous claims that an enhanced response to piano tones indicates use-dependent reorganization in musicians are not supported by the present data. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.034 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1506687057</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1053811905024171</els_id><sourcerecordid>3244459561</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-600b55824c1d7a86a4a036ed49ce848acadd44a22e223897dbab6b206becd4133</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMotn78BQl4detkN5vNHrX4BYIe9ByyydSm2qQmuwX_vSkt9uhphpl33pd5CKEMJgyYuF5MPA4xuKX-wEkJUOfxBCp-QMYM2rpo66Y83PR1VUjG2hE5SWkBAC3j8piMmKiqRjI-JvNXp32gffCYKK7DJ9LUx-A_MNLs7rF3hs4cftlE-7n2dDVE3MlDpD64hFe0C_2cOk-XQ3ImGyaqvc1LX_xNzsjRTH8lPN_VU_J-f_c2fSyeXx6epjfPheEAfSEAurqWJTfMNloKzTVUAi1vDUoutdHWcq7LEsuykm1jO92JrgTRobGcVdUpudz6rmL4HjD1ahGG6HOkYjUIIRuom6ySW5WJIaWIM7WKmWb8UQzUBrFaqD1itUG82WTE-fRiFzB0S7T7wx3TLLjdCjC_uXYYVTIOvUHrIppe2eD-T_kFZ66TYA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1506687057</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Piano tones evoke stronger magnetic fields than pure tones or noise, both in musicians and non-musicians</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Lütkenhöner, Bernd ; Seither-Preisler, Annemarie ; Seither, Stefan</creator><creatorcontrib>Lütkenhöner, Bernd ; Seither-Preisler, Annemarie ; Seither, Stefan</creatorcontrib><description>Regarding the net firing rate of the auditory nerve, the strongest response is to be expected when the input energy is spread as evenly as possible over the cochlea rather than being concentrated at a particular location. In some respects, this effect seems to be preserved up to the auditory cortex, but conflicting results have been reported as well. Here, we compared the auditory evoked fields (AEF) elicited by a pure tone and two sounds causing a more wide-spread cochlear activation: a piano tone as a representative of a complex tone, and bandpass noise. The stimuli had the same intensity (60 dB above threshold), and the center frequency of the noise corresponded to the fundamental frequency of the tones (1047 Hz, two octaves above middle C). Among the 26 subjects were 11 musicians and 11 persons who never played an instrument. At a latency of about 50 ms (wave P50m), the piano tone and the noise yielded stronger responses than the pure tone, in accordance with the concepts about the auditory periphery. By contrast, around 100 ms (wave N100m), the noise clearly elicited the smallest response, whereas the strongest response was elicited again by the piano tone. Musicians and non-musicians did not significantly differ concerning the responses to pure tones and piano tones. Thus, previous claims that an enhanced response to piano tones indicates use-dependent reorganization in musicians are not supported by the present data.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-8119</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-9572</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.034</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16337814</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Acoustic Stimulation - methods ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Electromagnetic Fields ; Evoked Potentials, Auditory - physiology ; Female ; Humans ; Magnetoencephalography ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Music ; Musicians & conductors ; Noise ; Studies</subject><ispartof>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.), 2006-04, Vol.30 (3), p.927-937</ispartof><rights>2005 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Apr 15, 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-600b55824c1d7a86a4a036ed49ce848acadd44a22e223897dbab6b206becd4133</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-600b55824c1d7a86a4a036ed49ce848acadd44a22e223897dbab6b206becd4133</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1506687057?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16337814$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lütkenhöner, Bernd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seither-Preisler, Annemarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seither, Stefan</creatorcontrib><title>Piano tones evoke stronger magnetic fields than pure tones or noise, both in musicians and non-musicians</title><title>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</title><addtitle>Neuroimage</addtitle><description>Regarding the net firing rate of the auditory nerve, the strongest response is to be expected when the input energy is spread as evenly as possible over the cochlea rather than being concentrated at a particular location. In some respects, this effect seems to be preserved up to the auditory cortex, but conflicting results have been reported as well. Here, we compared the auditory evoked fields (AEF) elicited by a pure tone and two sounds causing a more wide-spread cochlear activation: a piano tone as a representative of a complex tone, and bandpass noise. The stimuli had the same intensity (60 dB above threshold), and the center frequency of the noise corresponded to the fundamental frequency of the tones (1047 Hz, two octaves above middle C). Among the 26 subjects were 11 musicians and 11 persons who never played an instrument. At a latency of about 50 ms (wave P50m), the piano tone and the noise yielded stronger responses than the pure tone, in accordance with the concepts about the auditory periphery. By contrast, around 100 ms (wave N100m), the noise clearly elicited the smallest response, whereas the strongest response was elicited again by the piano tone. Musicians and non-musicians did not significantly differ concerning the responses to pure tones and piano tones. Thus, previous claims that an enhanced response to piano tones indicates use-dependent reorganization in musicians are not supported by the present data.</description><subject>Acoustic Stimulation - methods</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Electromagnetic Fields</subject><subject>Evoked Potentials, Auditory - physiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetoencephalography</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Music</subject><subject>Musicians & conductors</subject><subject>Noise</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>1053-8119</issn><issn>1095-9572</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1LAzEQhoMotn78BQl4detkN5vNHrX4BYIe9ByyydSm2qQmuwX_vSkt9uhphpl33pd5CKEMJgyYuF5MPA4xuKX-wEkJUOfxBCp-QMYM2rpo66Y83PR1VUjG2hE5SWkBAC3j8piMmKiqRjI-JvNXp32gffCYKK7DJ9LUx-A_MNLs7rF3hs4cftlE-7n2dDVE3MlDpD64hFe0C_2cOk-XQ3ImGyaqvc1LX_xNzsjRTH8lPN_VU_J-f_c2fSyeXx6epjfPheEAfSEAurqWJTfMNloKzTVUAi1vDUoutdHWcq7LEsuykm1jO92JrgTRobGcVdUpudz6rmL4HjD1ahGG6HOkYjUIIRuom6ySW5WJIaWIM7WKmWb8UQzUBrFaqD1itUG82WTE-fRiFzB0S7T7wx3TLLjdCjC_uXYYVTIOvUHrIppe2eD-T_kFZ66TYA</recordid><startdate>20060415</startdate><enddate>20060415</enddate><creator>Lütkenhöner, Bernd</creator><creator>Seither-Preisler, Annemarie</creator><creator>Seither, Stefan</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060415</creationdate><title>Piano tones evoke stronger magnetic fields than pure tones or noise, both in musicians and non-musicians</title><author>Lütkenhöner, Bernd ; Seither-Preisler, Annemarie ; Seither, Stefan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-600b55824c1d7a86a4a036ed49ce848acadd44a22e223897dbab6b206becd4133</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Acoustic Stimulation - methods</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Electromagnetic Fields</topic><topic>Evoked Potentials, Auditory - physiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetoencephalography</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Music</topic><topic>Musicians & conductors</topic><topic>Noise</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lütkenhöner, Bernd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seither-Preisler, Annemarie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seither, Stefan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lütkenhöner, Bernd</au><au>Seither-Preisler, Annemarie</au><au>Seither, Stefan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Piano tones evoke stronger magnetic fields than pure tones or noise, both in musicians and non-musicians</atitle><jtitle>NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.)</jtitle><addtitle>Neuroimage</addtitle><date>2006-04-15</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>927</spage><epage>937</epage><pages>927-937</pages><issn>1053-8119</issn><eissn>1095-9572</eissn><abstract>Regarding the net firing rate of the auditory nerve, the strongest response is to be expected when the input energy is spread as evenly as possible over the cochlea rather than being concentrated at a particular location. In some respects, this effect seems to be preserved up to the auditory cortex, but conflicting results have been reported as well. Here, we compared the auditory evoked fields (AEF) elicited by a pure tone and two sounds causing a more wide-spread cochlear activation: a piano tone as a representative of a complex tone, and bandpass noise. The stimuli had the same intensity (60 dB above threshold), and the center frequency of the noise corresponded to the fundamental frequency of the tones (1047 Hz, two octaves above middle C). Among the 26 subjects were 11 musicians and 11 persons who never played an instrument. At a latency of about 50 ms (wave P50m), the piano tone and the noise yielded stronger responses than the pure tone, in accordance with the concepts about the auditory periphery. By contrast, around 100 ms (wave N100m), the noise clearly elicited the smallest response, whereas the strongest response was elicited again by the piano tone. Musicians and non-musicians did not significantly differ concerning the responses to pure tones and piano tones. Thus, previous claims that an enhanced response to piano tones indicates use-dependent reorganization in musicians are not supported by the present data.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>16337814</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.034</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1053-8119 |
ispartof | NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.), 2006-04, Vol.30 (3), p.927-937 |
issn | 1053-8119 1095-9572 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1506687057 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
subjects | Acoustic Stimulation - methods Adolescent Adult Electromagnetic Fields Evoked Potentials, Auditory - physiology Female Humans Magnetoencephalography Male Middle Aged Music Musicians & conductors Noise Studies |
title | Piano tones evoke stronger magnetic fields than pure tones or noise, both in musicians and non-musicians |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T15%3A43%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Piano%20tones%20evoke%20stronger%20magnetic%20fields%20than%20pure%20tones%20or%20noise,%20both%20in%20musicians%20and%20non-musicians&rft.jtitle=NeuroImage%20(Orlando,%20Fla.)&rft.au=L%C3%BCtkenh%C3%B6ner,%20Bernd&rft.date=2006-04-15&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=927&rft.epage=937&rft.pages=927-937&rft.issn=1053-8119&rft.eissn=1095-9572&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.034&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3244459561%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1506687057&rft_id=info:pmid/16337814&rft_els_id=S1053811905024171&rfr_iscdi=true |