(A) A neurobiological taxonomic model of sound categories representing distinct acoustic–semantic (meaningful) classes of natural sounds based largely on hemodynamic neuroimaging. The theoretical rationale for exploring the temporal dynamic processing of human mimic voice. Moreover, responses to attending and categorizing human mimic voice, in contrast to the corresponding animal vocalizations being mimicked, were reported (using fMRI) to involve superior temporal plane regions (see Figure 1B, yellow colored cortex) in the vicinity of primary auditory cortices ( Talkington et al., 2012), which provided much of the rationale for the present electrophysiological study using human mimic voice as stimuli. This semantic processing model of auditory object processing (see Figure 1A) included three basic acoustic–semantic categories of sound source: (a) action sounds (nonvocalizations) produced by “living things” (b) action sounds produced by “nonliving things” and (c) vocalizations (“living things”), with human (conspecific) versus nonhuman animal vocalizations as two subcategories therein. From the perspective of hearing perception, our group recently formalized a neurobiological taxonomic model of real-world natural sound categories that the brain appears to utilize to encode meaningfulness behind the behaviorally relevant everyday sounds we hear ( Brefczynski-Lewis & Lewis, 2017), which in principle should apply to all social mammals with hearing and vocal communication ability. Voice-selective regions have been identified along the superior temporal sulci (STS) using fMRI in humans ( Belin et al., 2000 Belizaire et al., 2007 Pernet et al., 2015 Uppenkamp et al., 2006) and using fMRI or neurophysiology recording methods in macaque monkeys ( Perrodin et al., 2011 Petkov et al., 2008 Recanzone, 2008 Russ et al., 2008 Tian et al., 2001), suggesting a long evolutionary history of preferential processing for conspecific voice in primates. This study focused on examining electrophysiological processing to determine the earliest stages of when a human versus nonhuman vocalization processing distinction in the human brain would manifest: However, in contrast to earlier electrophysiological studies examining human voice and motivated by an earlier functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study using human “mimic voice,” the present auditory evoked potential (AEP) response study sought to examine the temporal dynamics of differential processing of sounds produced by humans mimicking animal vocalizations relative to the corresponding animal vocalizations themselves, which would serve as a critical control. A human listener can often distinguish human (conspecific) vocal mimicry from actual nonhuman animal (nonconspecific) vocalizations ( Lass et al., 1983), such as animal calls that are portrayed by human actors in animated cartoons. The ability to categorize and recognize different sources of natural sounds, including conspecific vocalizations as one category, is crucial to survival, and inadequate vocalization and paralinguistic processing in early childhood can lead to a wide variety of communication disorders ( Abrams et al., 2009 Imai & Kita, 2014 Rosch, 1973). Frum, Data curation, Investigation, a and James W. Brefczynski-Lewis, Conceptualization, Investigation, Validation, a Susannah Engdahl, Data curation, Methodology, Software, a David Graham, Conceptualization, Investigation, e Chris A. Gray, Data curation, Formal analysis, a Norman Lass, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, b Julie A. Valencia, Data curation, Formal analysis, a Brandon D. Ashraf, Data curation, Formal analysis, d Gabriela N. Gray, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Visualization, d Alexandria J. Layne, Formal analysis, Software, a Andrew Forino, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, a Sijin Wen, Formal analysis, c Si Gao, Formal analysis, c Margeaux M. Talkington, Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, a Jeremy Donai, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, b Alexandra S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |