Active versus passive listening to auditory streaming stimuli: A near-infrared spectroscopy study

Gerard B. Remijn, Haruyuki Kojima

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    14 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    We use near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) to assess listeners' cortical responses to a 10-s series of pure tones separated in frequency. Listeners are instructed to either judge the rhythm of these "streaming" stimuli (active-response listening) or to listen to the stimuli passively. Experiment 1 shows that active-response listening causes increases in oxygenated hemoglobin (oxy-Hb) in response to all stimuli, generally over the (pre)motor cortices. The oxy-Hb increases are significantly larger over the right hemisphere than over the left for the final 5 s of the stimulus. Hemodynamic levels do not vary with changes in the frequency separation between the tones and corresponding changes in perceived rhythm ("gallop," "streaming," or "ambiguous"). Experiment 2 shows that hemodynamic levels are strongly influenced by listening mode. For the majority of time windows, active-response listening causes significantly larger oxy-Hb increases than passive listening, significantly over the left hemisphere during the stimulus and over both hemispheres after the stimulus. This difference cannot be attributed to physical motor activity and preparation related to button pressing after stimulus end, because this is required in both listening modes.

    Original languageEnglish
    Article number037006
    JournalJournal of Biomedical Optics
    Volume15
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - May 2010

    All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

    • Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials
    • Biomaterials
    • Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics
    • Biomedical Engineering

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Active versus passive listening to auditory streaming stimuli: A near-infrared spectroscopy study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this