We present strategies for recognizing common adverse filter effects and filter artifacts and demonstrate them in practical examples. Best practices and recommendations for the selection and reporting of filter parameters, limitations, and alternatives to filtering are discussed.

Previously, professional violin players were found to automatically discriminate tiny pitch changes, not discriminable by nonmusicians. The present study addressed the pitch processing accuracy in musicians with expertise in playing a wide selection of instruments (e.g., piano; wind and string instruments). Of specific interest was whether also musicians with such divergent backgrounds have facilitated accuracy in automatic and/or attentive levels of auditory processing. Thirteen professional musicians and 13 nonmusicians were presented with frequent standard sounds and rare deviant sounds (0.8, 2, or 4% higher in frequency). Auditory event-related potentials evoked by these sounds were recorded while first the subjects read a self-chosen book and second they indicated behaviorally the detection of sounds with deviant frequency. Musicians detected the pitch changes faster and more accurately than nonmusicians. The N2b and P3 responses recorded during attentive listening had larger amplitude in musicians than in nonmusicians. Interestingly, the superiority in pitch discrimination accuracy in musicians over nonmusicians was observed not only with the 0.8% but also with the 2% frequency changes. Moreover, also nonmusicians detected quite reliably the smallest pitch changes of 0.8%. However, the mismatch negativity (MMN) and P3a recorded during a reading condition did not differentiate musicians and nonmusicians. These results suggest that musical expertise may exert its effects merely at attentive levels of processing and not necessarily already at the preattentive levels.

No abstract

No abstract

The remarkable capabilities displayed by humans in making sense of an overwhelming amount of sensory information cannot be explained easily if perception is viewed as a passive process. Current theoretical and computational models assume that to achieve meaningful and coherent perception, the human brain must anticipate upcoming stimulation. But how are upcoming stimuli predicted in the brain? We unmasked the neural representation of a prediction by omitting the predicted sensory input. Electrophysiological brain signals showed that when a clear prediction can be formulated, the brain activates a template of its response to the predicted stimulus before it arrives to our senses.