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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Experiment IV 149 larity × anterior-posterior distribution × hemisphere (F(1,20) = 25.30, p < 0.001). Essen- tially, the same results as in the ANOVA with age as covariate were observed, namely a significant ELAN was found which was most prominent at left-anterior scalp sites. In the former ANOVA, it was further shown that the ELAN amplitude was further influenced by the age of the participants. The user-defined contrasts revealed a significant difference between the experimental conditions for both anterior ROIs in the MT group (left: F(1,20) = 14.97, p = 0.001; right: F(1,20) = 8.08, p = 0.010). In the NM group, neither main effects nor interactions with syntactic regularity were found (in both ANOVAs, with and without age as covariate). Later sustained negativity: During the time period in which the ELAN develops, a later sustained negativity (LSN) in response to a violation of linguistic syntax can be found, which is regarded as a predecessor of the ELAN (cf. Hahne et al., 2004). It appears as a negative amplitude difference between the responses to the syntactically incorrect vs. the correct sentences with a later onset and a more sustained time course than the ELAN (see Figure 12-1). Such negative difference was found, most prominent in the leftanterior ROI (M= -2.19 μV, SEM = 0.24 μV), slightly smaller in the right-anterior ROI (M= -1.83 μV, SEM = 0.26 μV), whereas in the posterior ROIs almost no difference was observed (left: M= -0.16 μV, SEM = 0.21 μV; right: M= -0.39 μV, SEM = 0.24 μV). In contrast to the ELAN (that was strongly left-lateralized), this ERP component was distributed more bilaterally in the anterior ROIs. Its amplitude was much larger in the MT group (left-anterior: M= -2.79 μV, SEM = 0.33 μV; right-anterior: M= -2.57 μV, SEM = 0.35 μV) than in the NM group (left-anterior: M= -1.60 μV, SEM = 0.35 μV; right-anterior: M= -1.10 μV, SEM = 0.39 μV). This can be seen in the chart in the bottom-right panel of Figure 12-3. The scalp topographies (see Figure 12-2) also reflect the considerably larger amplitude of the LSN in the MT compared to the NM children. Moreover, the distribution at anterior scalp sites was more bilaterally in the MT group whereas it was more focused to the left hemisphere in the NM group. An overview of the results of the ANOVA used to evaluate this ERP component is given in Table 12-2 (column 4). It revealed a main effect of syntactic regularity, as well as interactions of syntactic regularity × subgroup, of syntactic regularity × subgroup × hemisphere × attention, of syntactic regularity × anterior-posterior distribution, and of syntactic regularity × anterior-posterior distribution × hemisphere. These results reflect that the LSN was most prominent at anterior sites (with a slight lateralization to the left hemisphere). MT children had a larger amplitude and a different lateralization of the LSN. Planned comparisons revealed that this ERP component was significant in both anterior ROIs but not for the posterior ROIs when both groups were considered (left-
Experiment IV 150 anterior: F(1,39) = 84.36, p < 0.001; right-anterior: F(1,39) = 48.59, p < 0.001). Further- more, the component’s amplitude was significantly larger in the MT group compared to the NM group in both anterior ROIs (left: F(1,39) = 6.24, p = 0.017; right: F(1,39) = 7.74, p = 0.008). The ANOVAs for each group revealed a main effect of syntactic regularity (MT: F(1,20) = 41.03, p < 0.001; NM: F(1,19) = 5.11, p = 0.036) as well as an interaction of syntactic regularity × anterior-posterior distribution (MT: F(1,20) = 51.18, p < 0.001; NM: F(1,19) = 26.03, p < 0.001) in both groups. This indicates that a significant LSN was found in both groups which had a larger amplitude at anterior sites. In the MT group, an interaction of syntactic regularity × hemisphere × attention (F(1,20) = 6.07, p = 0.023) was found, whereas in the NM group interactions of syntactic regularity × region × attention (F(1,19) = 4.91, p = 0.039) and of syntactic regularity × region × hemisphere (F(1,19) = 8.54, p = 0.009) were observed. 12.4 Discussion The present experiment compared the processing of musical and linguistic syntax in 11year old children that either received musical training or not. The charts in Figure 12-3 give an overview of the results of this experiment. Obviously, the amplitudes of the ERAN, the ELAN, and the LSN were considerably larger in the MT group compared to the NM group. The table below each chart contains the results from the user-defined contrasts that were employed to determine in which ROI the difference between the two experimental conditions (either irregular vs. regular chord or incorrect vs. correct sentences). It is indicated in which ROI a component was significant, either when both groups are considered (first row), or when the MT group (third row) and the NM group (fourth row) were evaluated separately. The second row indicates, if a larger amplitude was observed in the MT group compared to the NM group. The ERAN was found in both groups (MT and NM). It had a bilateral but slightly rightlateralized distribution at anterior scalp sites. Its latency is slightly delayed compared to adults with a peak at around 240 ms. Like in the MT group of the 9-year old children, an enlarged ERAN amplitude was found in the MT group of the 11-year old children. It is also in accordance with the evidence from an earlier study which found an enlarged ERAN amplitude in adult musicians compared to non-musicians (Koelsch, Schmidt et al., 2002). However, this finding is remarkable given that the children in the MT group did play an instrument not longer than for around 5 years, and that the ERAN amplitude in the eleven-year old children with MT was increased to 253% compared to the children with NM. The ERAN in the MT group seems to be more widely extended over the scalp, presumably due to its larger amplitude. The enlarged ERAN amplitude likely
Page 1 and 2:
Sebastian Jentschke: Neural Correla
Page 3 and 4:
Gutachter der Arbeit Prof. Dr. Ange
Page 6 and 7:
Table of contents 1 Introduction 1
Page 8 and 9:
TABLE OF CONTENTS IX 7 Electroencep
Page 10:
TABLE OF CONTENTS XI Abbreviations
Page 13 and 14:
Zusammenfassung der wissenschaftlic
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 20 and 21:
1 Introduction Language and music a
Page 22 and 23:
2 Music Perception Music is one of
Page 24 and 25:
Music Perception 5 to her infant re
Page 26 and 27:
Music Perception 7 chronize movemen
Page 28 and 29:
Music Perception 9 at 5 years of ag
Page 30 and 31:
Music Perception 11 keys related by
Page 32 and 33:
Music Perception 13 Krumhansl and S
Page 34 and 35:
Music Perception 15 tion. The proce
Page 36 and 37:
Music Perception 17 MMN paradigms m
Page 38 and 39:
Music Perception 19 In a study, emp
Page 40 and 41:
Music Perception 21 2001a). Janata
Page 42 and 43:
3 Musical Training Performing a pie
Page 44 and 45:
Musical Training 25 Deliberate prac
Page 46 and 47:
Musical Training 27 them to transfe
Page 48 and 49:
Musical Training 29 can be found ev
Page 50 and 51:
Musical Training 31 dition (and onl
Page 52 and 53:
Musical Training 33 without substan
Page 54 and 55:
Musical Training 35 such studies sh
Page 56:
Musical Training 37 with regard to
Page 59 and 60:
Music and Language 40 Brown (2000)
Page 61 and 62:
Music and Language 42 ture (for a r
Page 63 and 64:
Music and Language 44 Neural constr
Page 65 and 66:
Music and Language 46 pitch registe
Page 67 and 68:
Music and Language 48 functions. Th
Page 69 and 70:
Music and Language 50 found from ve
Page 71 and 72:
Language Perception 52 cross-langua
Page 73 and 74:
Language Perception 54 ing that a w
Page 75 and 76:
Language Perception 56 Perceptual g
Page 77 and 78:
Language Perception 58 Social const
Page 79 and 80:
Language Perception 60 Syntax After
Page 81 and 82:
Language Perception 62 2002; Newpor
Page 83 and 84:
Language Perception 64 Complex synt
Page 85 and 86:
Language Perception 66 which these
Page 87 and 88:
Language Perception 68 interaction
Page 89 and 90:
Language Perception 70 only disrupt
Page 91 and 92:
Language Perception 72 tic structur
Page 93 and 94:
Specific Language Impairment 74 ind
Page 95 and 96:
Specific Language Impairment 76 6.2
Page 97 and 98:
Specific Language Impairment 78 6.3
Page 99 and 100:
Specific Language Impairment 80 (Be
Page 101 and 102:
Specific Language Impairment 82 ply
Page 103 and 104:
Specific Language Impairment 84 mis
Page 105 and 106:
Specific Language Impairment 86 the
Page 107 and 108:
Electroencephalography and Event-Re
Page 109 and 110:
Electroencephalography and Event-Re
Page 112:
8 Experiments I - IV: Introduction
Page 115 and 116:
Experiment I 96 parents. 13 All chi
Page 117 and 118: Experiment I 98 patterns in short-t
Page 119 and 120: Experiment I 100 -1.02 μV, SEM =0.
Page 121 and 122: Experiment I 102 EAD Figure 9-3 Gra
Page 123 and 124: Experiment I 104 amplitude size of
Page 126 and 127: 10 Experiment II: Neural correlates
Page 128 and 129: Experiment II 109 Stimuli and parad
Page 130 and 131: Experiment II 111 tion of objects;
Page 132 and 133: Experiment II 113 amplitude in the
Page 134 and 135: Experiment II 115 as compared to no
Page 136 and 137: Experiment II 117 negative) amplitu
Page 138 and 139: Experiment II 119 expectancy of a r
Page 140 and 141: Experiment II 121 physical judgemen
Page 142 and 143: 11 Experiment III: Neural correlate
Page 144 and 145: Experiment III 125 periment IV - wh
Page 146 and 147: Experiment III 127 cational backgro
Page 148 and 149: Experiment III 129 due to a differe
Page 150 and 151: Experiment III 131 scalp sites. Pla
Page 152 and 153: Experiment III 133 of syntactic reg
Page 154 and 155: Experiment III 135 Even though desc
Page 156: Experiment III 137 ion than in the
Page 159 and 160: Experiment IV 140 cluded), [2] they
Page 161 and 162: Experiment IV 142 12.3 Results Coho
Page 163 and 164: Experiment IV 144 Figure 12-3 summa
Page 165 and 166: Experiment IV 146 p < 0.001). In th
Page 167: Experiment IV 148 tion cross vs. si
Page 171 and 172: Experiment IV 152 An N5 usually fol
Page 174 and 175: 13 Experiment I - IV: Development o
Page 176: Development of the Neural Correlate
Page 179 and 180: General Discussion 160 and Leonard,
Page 181 and 182: General Discussion 162 sent in the
Page 183 and 184: General Discussion 164 economic sta
Page 185 and 186: General Discussion 166 Friederici,
Page 187 and 188: General Discussion 168 year old chi
Page 190 and 191: Lists of figures and tables Figure
Page 192 and 193: References Abney, S. P. (1989). A c
Page 194 and 195: References 175 Bharucha, J. J., & S
Page 196 and 197: References 177 Brattico, E., Tervan
Page 198 and 199: References 179 Creel, S. C., Newpor
Page 200 and 201: References 181 Farrell, M. M., & Ph
Page 202 and 203: References 183 Friedrich, M., & Fri
Page 204 and 205: References 185 logie. Themenbereich
Page 206 and 207: References 187 Hoff, E., & Tian, C.
Page 208 and 209: References 189 Jones, M. R. (1982).
Page 210 and 211: References 191 Koelsch, S., & Siebe
Page 212 and 213: References 193 Leonard, L. B. (2000
Page 214 and 215: References 195 McMullen, E., & Saff
Page 216 and 217: References 197 Nobre, A. C., Coull,
Page 218 and 219:
References 199 Peretz, I. (1990). P
Page 220 and 221:
References 201 Roederer, J. (1984).
Page 222 and 223:
References 203 Schöler, H. (2004).
Page 224 and 225:
References 205 Sluming, V., Brooks,
Page 226 and 227:
References 207 Thompson, W. F., Sch
Page 228 and 229:
References 209 Trehub, S. E. (2003c
Page 230:
References 211 Weinert, S. (1991).
Page 233 and 234:
Appendix A-2 014 incorrect Das Nilp
Page 235 and 236:
Appendix A-4 044 correct Der Rasen
Page 237 and 238:
Appendix A-6 073 incorrect Die Medi
Page 240 and 241:
Curriculum vitae Sebastian Jentschk
Page 242:
Selbstständigkeitserklärung Hierm
Page 246 and 247:
MPI Series in Human Cognitive and B
Page 248 and 249:
32 André J. Szameitat Die Funktion
Page 250 and 251:
63 Ann Pannekamp Prosodische Inform
Page 252:
96 Marcel Braß Das inferior fronta
show all

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?