2018
DOI: 10.1523/eneuro.0333-18.2018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electrophysiological Correlates of Absolute Pitch in a Passive Auditory Oddball Paradigm: a Direct Replication Attempt

Abstract: Humans with absolute pitch (AP) are able to effortlessly name the pitch class of a sound without an external reference. The association of labels with pitches cannot be entirely suppressed even if it interferes with task demands. This suggests a high level of automaticity of pitch labeling in AP. The automatic nature of AP was further investigated in a study by Rogenmoser et al. (2015). Using a passive auditory oddball paradigm in combination with electroencephalography, they observed electrophysiological diff… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
14
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

6
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
3
14
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The stimulus was a sinusoidal tone of 1046.5 Hz, which corresponded to the frequency of C6 (American notation). A single, fixed frequency was used, because the use of multiple frequencies introduces pitch changes, neural responses to which might confound the results by the mechanisms of neural adaptation and/or mismatch negativity (Tervaniemi et al, 1993; Elmer et al, 2015; Rogenmoser et al, 2015; Greber et al, 2018). With a repeated presentation of the note, the participants could perceive it as the keynote of the stimulus sequence, but it required AP to identify the specific note as we did not provide any information about the stimulus.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The stimulus was a sinusoidal tone of 1046.5 Hz, which corresponded to the frequency of C6 (American notation). A single, fixed frequency was used, because the use of multiple frequencies introduces pitch changes, neural responses to which might confound the results by the mechanisms of neural adaptation and/or mismatch negativity (Tervaniemi et al, 1993; Elmer et al, 2015; Rogenmoser et al, 2015; Greber et al, 2018). With a repeated presentation of the note, the participants could perceive it as the keynote of the stimulus sequence, but it required AP to identify the specific note as we did not provide any information about the stimulus.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In EEG, this interference is reflected by a negative-going deflection around 400 ms after target-onset, which is referred to as the N400 (Kutas and Hillyard 1980;Zhang et al 2010). EEG has an excellent time resolution and has been insightful in capturing the early perceptual and cognitive processes underlying AP (Elmer et al 2013;Rogenmoser et al 2015;Greber et al 2018;Burkhard et al 2019;Leipold, Oderbolz, et al 2019). In the present study, the participants were instructed to judge as quickly and accurately as possible whether pictures (targets) were either pleasant or unpleasant by pressing one of two response buttons.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As described above, group differences between AP and non-AP musicians in neurophysiological activity have been repeatedly observed during attentive listening. However, in several studies, the mismatch negativity, an ERP component evoked during passive listening in passive oddball tasks, did not differ between AP and non-AP musicians (Tervaniemi et al, 1993;Rogenmoser et al, 2015;Greber et al, 2018). Thus, the focus of attention could play a role in whether and to what extent subprocesses of pitch labeling and associated neurophysiological activations are automatically triggered by acoustic stimuli.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%