Statistical Learning of Melodic Patterns Influences the Brain's Response to Wrong Notes

The theory of statistical learning has been influential in providing a framework for how humans learn to segment patterns of regularities from continuous sensory inputs, such as speech and music. This form of learning is based on statistical cues and is thought to underlie the ability to learn to segment patterns of regularities from continuous sensory inputs, such as the transition probabilities in speech and music. However, the connection between statistical learning and brain measurements is not well understood. Here we focus on ERPs in the context of tone sequences that contain statistically cohesive melodic patterns. We hypothesized that implicit learning of statistical regularities would influence what was held in auditory working memory. We predicted that a wrong note occurring within a cohesive pattern (within-pattern deviant) would lead to a significantly larger brain signal than a wrong note occurring between cohesive patterns (between-pattern deviant), even though both deviant types were equally likely to occur with respect to the global tone sequence. We discuss this prediction within a simple Markov model framework that learns the transition probability regularities within the tone sequence. Results show that signal strength was stronger when cohesive patterns were violated and demonstrate that the transitional probability of the sequence influences the memory basis for melodic patterns. Our results thus characterize how informational units are stored in auditory memory trace for deviance detection and provide new evidence about how the brain organizes sequential sound input that is useful for perception.

[1]  E. Sussman,et al.  The Five Myths of MMN: Redefining How to Use MMN in Basic and Clinical Research , 2014, Brain Topography.

[2]  Elizabeth K. Johnson,et al.  Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults , 1999, Cognition.

[3]  K. Reinikainen,et al.  Attentive novelty detection in humans is governed by pre-attentive sensory memory , 1994, Nature.

[4]  I. Winkler,et al.  ‘Primitive intelligence’ in the auditory cortex , 2001, Trends in Neurosciences.

[5]  E. Sussman A New View on the MMN and Attention Debate The Role of Context in Processing Auditory Events , 2007 .

[6]  Risto Näätänen,et al.  Event-related potentials reveal how non-attended complex sound patterns are represented by the human brain , 1992, Neuroscience Letters.

[7]  John Shawe-Taylor,et al.  Neural prediction of higher-order auditory sequence statistics , 2011, NeuroImage.

[8]  Paavo Alku,et al.  Statistical language learning in neonates revealed by event-related brain potentials , 2009, BMC Neuroscience.

[9]  A. Friederici,et al.  Phonotactic knowledge of word boundaries and its use in infant speech perception , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Infants' preference for the predominant stress patterns of English words. , 1993, Child development.

[11]  Mari Tervaniemi,et al.  Grouping of Sequential SoundsAn Event-Related Potential Study Comparing Musicians and Nonmusicians , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[12]  R. Näätänen Implications of ERP data for psychological theories of attention , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[13]  Y. Dan,et al.  Activity Recall in Visual Cortical Ensemble , 2012, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  M. Goldsmith,et al.  Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants , 1996 .

[15]  O. Schwartz,et al.  Distinguishing Neural Adaptation and Predictive Coding Hypotheses in Auditory Change Detection , 2016, Brain Topography.

[16]  Risto Näätänen,et al.  Implicit, Intuitive, and Explicit Knowledge of Abstract Regularities in a Sound Sequence: An Event-related Brain Potential Study , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[17]  Minna Huotilainen,et al.  Implicit Segmentation of a Stream of Syllables Based on Transitional Probabilities: An MEG Study , 2012, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[18]  D. Lehmann,et al.  Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multichannel potential fields. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[19]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Phonotactic and Prosodic Effects on Word Segmentation in Infants , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  Sue L. Denham,et al.  A Neurocomputational Model of Stimulus-Specific Adaptation to Oddball and Markov Sequences , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[21]  Janet F Werker,et al.  Learning non-adjacent regularities at age 0 ; 7. , 2013, Journal of child language.

[22]  Christopher M. Conway,et al.  Neurocognitive mechanisms of statistical-sequential learning: what do event-related potentials tell us? , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[23]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The mismatch negativity: A review of underlying mechanisms , 2009, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[24]  R. Näätänen,et al.  Automatic auditory intelligence: An expression of the sensory–cognitive core of cognitive processes , 2010, Brain Research Reviews.

[25]  J. Werker,et al.  Tuned to the signal: the privileged status of speech for young infants. , 2004, Developmental science.

[26]  Hugo Lagercrantz,et al.  Language experienced in utero affects vowel perception after birth: a two‐country study , 2013, Acta paediatrica.

[27]  E. Newport,et al.  Science Current Directions in Psychological Statistical Learning : from Acquiring Specific Items to Forming General Rules on Behalf Of: Association for Psychological Science , 2022 .

[28]  A. Woodward,et al.  Infants' sensitivity to word boundaries in fluent speech , 1996, Journal of Child Language.

[29]  A. Decasper,et al.  Prenatal maternal speech influences newborns' perception of speech sounds , 1986 .

[30]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Phonotactic cues for segmentation of fluent speech by infants , 2001, Cognition.

[31]  N. Cowan,et al.  Mismatch negativity in children and adults, and effects of an attended task. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[32]  Sibylle C. Herholz,et al.  Statistical learning effects in musicians and non-musicians: An MEG study , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  W. Ritter,et al.  An investigation of the auditory streaming effect using event-related brain potentials. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[34]  Stefan Koelsch,et al.  Under the hood of statistical learning: A statistical MMN reflects the magnitude of transitional probabilities in auditory sequences , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[35]  E. Schröger,et al.  Processing of auditory deviants with changes in one versus two stimulus dimensions. , 1995, Psychophysiology.

[36]  I. Winkler,et al.  Top-down effects can modify the initially stimulus-driven auditory organization. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[37]  K. Campbell,et al.  Evidence that the mismatch negativity to pattern violations does not vary with deviant probability , 2011, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[38]  R. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Superior formation of cortical memory traces for melodic patterns in musicians. , 2001, Learning & memory.

[39]  M. Tervaniemi,et al.  Representation of abstract attributes of auditory stimuli in the human brain. , 1992, Neuroreport.