07.12.2012 Views

Neural Correlates of Processing Syntax in Music and ... - PubMan

Neural Correlates of Processing Syntax in Music and ... - PubMan

Neural Correlates of Processing Syntax in Music and ... - PubMan

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Electroencephalography <strong>and</strong> Event-Related Potentials 89<br />

The ERP waveform <strong>of</strong> voltage plotted aga<strong>in</strong>st post-stimulus time consists <strong>of</strong> a series <strong>of</strong><br />

positive <strong>and</strong> negative peaks; these are typically compared to a pre-stimulus basel<strong>in</strong>e.<br />

Voltages are thus only negative or positive with respect to the basel<strong>in</strong>e. The ERP peaks<br />

are typically labelled accord<strong>in</strong>g to their polarity (negative [N] or positive [P]) <strong>and</strong> their<br />

latency <strong>in</strong> milliseconds relative to stimulus onset (e.g., N100, P230, P300). Occasionally,<br />

peaks are designated by their polarity <strong>and</strong> ord<strong>in</strong>al position <strong>in</strong> the waveform (e.g.,<br />

N1, P1, <strong>and</strong> N2). Sometimes, the labels denote a functional description (e.g., mismatch<br />

negativity), refer to its presumed neural generator (e.g., auditory bra<strong>in</strong>stem response) or<br />

its most reliable scalp location (e.g., left anterior negativity). Particular ERP “components”<br />

denote that, <strong>in</strong> response to an external stimulus, different parts <strong>of</strong> the nervous<br />

system with different function are <strong>in</strong>volved at different time po<strong>in</strong>ts. Thus, different<br />

temporal <strong>in</strong>tervals <strong>of</strong> the waveform likely reflect different anatomical locations <strong>and</strong><br />

different functional processes. Moreover, any particular <strong>in</strong>terval may reflect more than<br />

one underly<strong>in</strong>g process.<br />

Usually, the amplitudes, latencies, <strong>and</strong> scalp distributions <strong>of</strong> the earlier ERP components<br />

(with latencies up to 100 ms) are highly reproducible across sessions with<strong>in</strong> an<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividual (Halliday, 1993). Systematic variations <strong>in</strong> the physical parameters <strong>of</strong> the<br />

evok<strong>in</strong>g stimulus (e.g., <strong>in</strong>tensity, frequency, duration) lead to predictable changes <strong>in</strong><br />

these early components reflect<strong>in</strong>g the altered activation <strong>of</strong> sensory pathways. Hence, the<br />

earlier evoked components are considered to be “exogenous” or stimulus bound. For<br />

research on cognitive processes, the more <strong>in</strong>formative bra<strong>in</strong> waves are the “endogenous”<br />

components. The relative <strong>in</strong>sensitivity <strong>of</strong> endogenous components to variations <strong>in</strong><br />

the physical stimulus parameters contrasts with their exquisite responsiveness to task<br />

dem<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>in</strong>structions, <strong>and</strong> subjects’ <strong>in</strong>tentions, decisions, expectancies, strategies, etc.<br />

Thus, the same physical stimulus may (or may not) be followed by particular endogenous<br />

components depend<strong>in</strong>g on how the subject chooses to process it. Endogenous ERP<br />

components are not “evoked” by a stimulus but elicited by the perceptual <strong>and</strong> cognitive<br />

operations that are engendered by that stimulus.<br />

EEG pre-process<strong>in</strong>g: ERPs are so small that an artefact <strong>in</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle trial may <strong>in</strong>fluence<br />

the appearance <strong>of</strong> the average. Time-l<strong>in</strong>ked artefacts may be emphasized by averag<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

Thus, it is necessary to remove these artefacts before averag<strong>in</strong>g. There are at least three<br />

different strategies to remove artefacts <strong>in</strong> EEG data: [1] filter<strong>in</strong>g, [2] remov<strong>in</strong>g particular<br />

ICA components that represent artefacts, <strong>and</strong> [3] reject<strong>in</strong>g artefact-loaden trials.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!