Changes in the Auditory Association Cortex in Dementing Illnesses

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 1327-1333
Author(s):  
Alana Aylward ◽  
Priscilla Auduong ◽  
Jeffrey S. Anderson ◽  
Brandon A. Zielinski ◽  
Angela Y. Wang ◽  
...  
2002 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 540-543 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Foxe ◽  
Glenn R. Wylie ◽  
Antigona Martinez ◽  
Charles E. Schroeder ◽  
Daniel C. Javitt ◽  
...  

Using high-field (3 Tesla) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we demonstrate that auditory and somatosensory inputs converge in a subregion of human auditory cortex along the superior temporal gyrus. Further, simultaneous stimulation in both sensory modalities resulted in activity exceeding that predicted by summing the responses to the unisensory inputs, thereby showing multisensory integration in this convergence region. Recently, intracranial recordings in macaque monkeys have shown similar auditory-somatosensory convergence in a subregion of auditory cortex directly caudomedial to primary auditory cortex (area CM). The multisensory region identified in the present investigation may be the human homologue of CM. Our finding of auditory-somatosensory convergence in early auditory cortices contributes to mounting evidence for multisensory integration early in the cortical processing hierarchy, in brain regions that were previously assumed to be unisensory.


1994 ◽  
Vol 663 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selene Cansino ◽  
Samuel J. Williamson ◽  
Daniel Karron

2002 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 599-609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A Sweet ◽  
Joseph N Pierri ◽  
Sungyoung Auh ◽  
Allan R Sampson ◽  
David A Lewis

1998 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda L. Chao ◽  
Robert T. Knight

Neurological patients with focal lesions in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and age-matched control subjects were tested on an auditory version of the delayed-match-to-sample task employing environmental sounds. Subjects had to indicate whether a cue (S1) and a subsequent target sound (S2) were identical. On some trials, S1 and S2 were separated by a silent period of 5 sec. On other trials, the 5-sec delay between S1 and S2 was filled with irrelevant tone pips that served as distractors. Behaviorally, frontal patients were impaired by the presence of distractors. Electrophysiologically, patients generated enhanced primary auditory cortex-evoked responses to the tone pips, supporting a failure in inhibitory control of sensory processing after prefrontal damage. Intrahemispheric reductions of neural activity generated in the auditory association cortex and additional intrahemispheric reductions of attention-related frontal activity were also observed in the prefrontal patients. Together, these findings suggest that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is crucial for gating distracting information as well as maintaining distributed intrahemispheric neural activity during auditory working memory.


NeuroImage ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 1345-1360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nienke M. van Atteveldt ◽  
Elia Formisano ◽  
Rainer Goebel ◽  
Leo Blomert

Author(s):  
Urszula Malinowska ◽  
Nathan E. Crone ◽  
Frederick A. Lenz ◽  
Mackenzie Cervenka ◽  
Dana Boatman-Reich

1988 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 406-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Tranel ◽  
D. R. Brady ◽  
G. W. Van Hoesen ◽  
A. R. Damasio

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Galit Agmon ◽  
Paz Har-Shai Yahav ◽  
Michal Ben-Shachar ◽  
Elana Zion Golumbic

AbstractDaily life is full of situations where many people converse at the same time. Under these noisy circumstances, individuals can employ different listening strategies to deal with the abundance of sounds around them. In this fMRI study we investigated how applying two different listening strategies – Selective vs. Distributed attention – affects the pattern of neural activity. Specifically, in a simulated ‘cocktail party’ paradigm, we compared brain activation patterns when listeners attend selectively to only one speaker and ignore all others, versus when they distribute their attention and attempt to follow two or four speakers at the same time. Results indicate that the two attention types activate a highly overlapping, bilateral fronto-temporal-parietal network of functionally connected regions. This network includes auditory association cortex (bilateral STG/STS) and higher-level regions related to speech processing and attention (bilateral IFG/insula, right MFG, left IPS). Within this network, responses in specific areas were modulated by the type of attention required. Specifically, auditory and speech-processing regions exhibited higher activity during Distributed attention, whereas fronto-parietal regions were activated more strongly during Selective attention. This pattern suggests that a common perceptual-attentional network is engaged when dealing with competing speech-inputs, regardless of the specific task at hand. At the same time, local activity within nodes of this network varies when implementing different listening strategies, reflecting the different cognitive demands they impose. These results nicely demonstrate the system’s flexibility to adapt its internal computations to accommodate different task requirements and listener goals.Significance StatementHearing many people talk simultaneously poses substantial challenges for the human perceptual and cognitive systems. We compared neural activity when listeners applied two different listening strategy to deal with these competing inputs: attending selectively to one speaker vs. distributing attention among all speakers. A network of functionally connected brain regions, involved in auditory processing, language processing and attentional control was activated when applying both attention types. However, activity within this network was modulated by the type of attention required and the number of competing speakers. These results suggest a common ‘attention to speech’ network, providing the computational infrastructure to deal effectively with multi-speaker input, but with sufficient flexibility to implement different prioritization strategies and to adapt to different listener goals.


Science ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 247 (4940) ◽  
pp. 336-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Colombo ◽  
M. D'Amato ◽  
H. Rodman ◽  
C. Gross

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document