JACIII Vol.15 No.8 pp. 962-971
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2011.p0962


Accuracy of Synchrony Judgment and its Relation to the Auditory Brainstem Response: the Difference Between Pianists and Non-Pianists

Eriko Aiba*1, Koji Kazai*1, Takayuki Shimotomai*2,
Toshie Matsui*3, Minoru Tsuzaki*4, and Noriko Nagata*1

*1Kwansei Gakuin University, 2-1 Gakuen, Sanda, Hyogo 669-1337, Japan

*2Brain Science Institute, Tamagawa University, Japan

*3Nara Medical University, Japan

*4Kyoto City University of Arts, Japan

February 28, 2011
July 26, 2011
October 20, 2011
Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR), cochlear delay, pulse, pianist, synchrony

Synchrony judgment is one of the most important abilities for musicians. Only a few milliseconds of onset asynchrony result in a significant difference in musical expression. Using behavioural responses and Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABR), this study investigates whether synchrony judgment accuracy improves with training and, if so, whether physiological responses are also changed through training. Psychoacoustic experiments showed that accuracy of synchrony judgment of pianists was higher than that of non-pianists, implying that pianists’ ability to perceive tones increased through training. ABRmeasurements also showed differences between pianists and non-pianists. However, cochlear delay, an asymmetric aspect of temporal processing in the human auditory system, did not change with training. It is possible that training improved ability related to temporal tone perception and that training may increase synchrony in auditory nerve firing.

Cite this article as:
Eriko Aiba, Koji Kazai, Takayuki Shimotomai,
Toshie Matsui, Minoru Tsuzaki, and Noriko Nagata, “Accuracy of Synchrony Judgment and its Relation to the Auditory Brainstem Response: the Difference Between Pianists and Non-Pianists,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.15, No.8, pp. 962-971, 2011.
Data files:
  1. [1] A. S. Bregman, “Auditory scene analysis,” MIT Press, 1990.
  2. [2] C. J. Darwin, “Perceiving vowels in the presence of another sound: constraints on formant perception,” J. Acoust Soc Am, Vol.76, No.6, pp. 1636-1647, 1984.
  3. [3] C. J. Darwin and V. Ciocca, “Grouping in pitch perception: effects of onset asynchrony and ear of presentation of a mistuned component,” J. Acoust Soc Am, Vol.91, Vol.6, pp. 3381-3390, 1992.
  4. [4] R. W. Hukin and C. J. Darwin, “Comparison of the effect of onset asynchrony on auditory grouping in pitch matching and vowel identification,” Percept Psychophys, Vol.57, No.2, pp. 191-196, 1995.
  5. [5] J. A. Sloboda, “Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvization, and composition,” Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 72-90, 1988.
  6. [6] R. A. Rasch, “The perception of simultaneous notes such as in polyphonic music,” Acustica, Vol.40, pp. 22-33, 1978.
  7. [7] S. Sadie and J. Tyrrell, “The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians,” Oxford University Press, USA, 2004.
  8. [8] G. von Békésy, “Experiments in hearing,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960.
  9. [9] S. Uppenkamp, S. Fobel, and R. D. Patterson, “The effects of temporal asymmetry on the detection and perception of short chirps,” Hearing Research, Vol.158, No.1-2, pp. 71-83, 2001.
  10. [10] E. Aiba and M. Tsuzaki, “Perceptual judgment in synchronization of two complex tones : Relation to the cochlear delays,” Acoustical science and technology, Vol.28, No.5, pp. 357-359, 2007.
  11. [11] E. Aiba, M. Tsuzaki, S. Tanaka, and M. Unoki, “Judgment of perceptual synchrony between two pulses and verification of its relation to cochlear delay by an auditory model,” Japanese Psychological Research, Vol.50, No.4, pp. 204-213, 2008.
  12. [12] T. Dau, O. Wegner, V. Mellert, and B. Kollmeier, “Auditory brainstem responses (ABR) with optimized chirp signals compensating basilar membrane dispersion,” J. Acoust Soc Am, Vol.107, No.3, pp. 1530-1540, 2000.
  13. [13] E. de Boer, “Auditory physics: Physical principles in hearing theory I,” Physics Report, Vol.62, pp. 87-174, 1980.
  14. [14] G. M. Bidelman and A. Krishnan, “Effects of reverberation on brainstem representation of speech in musicians and nonmusicians,” Brain Research, Vol.1355, pp. 112-125, 2010.
  15. [15] G. M. Bidelman, A. Krishnan, and J. T. Gandour, “Enhanced brainstem encoding predicts musicians’ perceptual advantages with pitch,” Eur J. Neurosci, Vol.33, No.3, pp. 530-538, 2011.
  16. [16] G. Musacchia, D. Strait, and N. Kraus, “Relationships between behavior, brainstem and cortical encoding of seen and heard speech in musicians and non-musicians,” Hearing Research, Vol.241, No.1-2, pp. 34-42, 2008.
  17. [17] D. L. Strait, N. Kraus, E. Skoe, and R. Ashley, “Musical experience and neural efficiency? effects of training on subcortical processing of vocal expressions of emotion,” European J. of Neuroscience, Vol.29, No.3, pp. 661-668, 2009.
  18. [18] M. Don and J. J. Eggermont, “Analysis of the click-evoked brainstem potentials in man using high-pass noise masking,” J. Acoust Soc Am, Vol.63, No.4, pp. 1084-1092, 1978.
  19. [19] E. Aiba, ““Unification” and “Separation” of Overlapped Sounds,” Doctral Thesis, Graduate School of Kyoto City University of Arts, 2009.
  20. [20] J. O. Pickles, “An introduction to the physiology of hearing,” Emerald (3rd), United Kingdom, 2008.
  21. [21] A. R. Moller, “Hearing : anatomy, physiology, and disorders of the auditory system,” Elsevier Academic, Amsterdam ; Oxford (2nd), 2006.
  22. [22] Y. Murakami and M. Unoki, “A study on the input-output function of a nonlinear cochlear transmission-line model with the function of an outer hair cells model,” J. Acoust Soc Am (151st Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA), Vol.122, p. 3061, 2007.
  23. [23] T. Tzounopoulos and N. Kraus, “Learning to encode timing: mechanisms of plasticity in the auditory brainstem,” Neuron, Vol.62, No.4, pp. 463-469, 2009.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Mar. 05, 2021