Motion-onset auditory-evoked potentials critically depend on history

Temporal integration of sound motion: Motion-onset response and perception

The purpose of our study was to estimate the time interval required for integrating the acoustical changes related to sound motion using both psychophysical and EEG measures. Healthy listeners performed direction identification tasks under dichotic conditions in the delayed-motion paradigm. Minimal audible movement angle (MAMA) has been measured over the range of velocities from 60 to 360 deg/s. We also measured minimal duration of motion, at which the listeners could identify its direction. EEG was recorded in the same group of subjects during passive listening. Motion onset responses (MOR) were analyzed. MAMA increased linearly with motion velocity. Minimum audible angle (MAA) calculated from this linear function was about 2 deg. For higher velocities of the delayed motion, we found 2- to 3-fold better spatial resolution than the one previously reported for motion starting at the sound onset. The time required for optimal discrimination of motion direction was about 34 ms. The main finding of our study was that both direction identification time obtained in the behavioral task and cN1 latency behaved like hyperbolic functions of the sound's velocity. Direction identification time decreased asymptotically to 8 ms, which was considered minimal integration time for the instantaneous shift detection. Peak latency of cN1 also decreased with increasing velocity and asymptotically approached 137 ms. This limit corresponded to the latency of response to the instantaneous sound shift and was 37 ms later than the latency of the sound-onset response. The direction discrimination time (34 ms) was of the same magnitude as the additional time required for motion processing to be reflected in the MOR potential. Thus, MOR latency can be viewed as a neurophysiological index of temporal integration. Based on the findings obtained, we may assume that no measurable MOR would be evoked by slowly moving stimuli as they would reach their MAMAs in a time longer than the optimal integration time.

The perception of auditory motion in sighted and early blind individuals

Motion perception is a fundamental sensory task that plays a critical evolutionary role. In vision, motion processing is classically described using a motion energy model with spatiotemporally nonseparable filters suited for capturing the smooth continuous changes in spatial position over time afforded by moving objects. However, it is still not clear whether the filters underlying auditory motion discrimination are also continuous motion detectors or infer motion from comparing discrete sound locations over time (spatiotemporally separable). We used a psychophysical reverse correlation paradigm, where participants discriminated the direction of a motion signal in the presence of spatiotemporal noise, to determine whether the filters underlying auditory motion discrimination were spatiotemporally separable or nonseparable. We then examined whether these auditory motion filters were altered as a result of early blindness. We found that both sighted and early blind individuals have separable filters. However, early blind individuals show increased sensitivity to auditory motion, with reduced susceptibility to noise and filters that were more accurate in detecting motion onsets/offsets. Model simulations suggest that this reliance on separable filters is optimal given the limited spatial resolution of auditory input.

Sound frequency affects the auditory motion-onset response in humans

The current study examines the modulation of the motion-onset response based on the frequency-range of sound stimuli. Delayed motion-onset and stationary stimuli were presented in a free-field by sequentially activating loudspeakers on an azimuthal plane keeping the natural percept of externalized sound presentation. The sounds were presented in low- or high-frequency ranges and had different motion direction within each hemifield. Difference waves were calculated by contrasting the moving and stationary sounds to isolate the motion-onset responses. Analyses carried out at the peak amplitudes and latencies on the difference waves showed that the early part of the motion response (cN1) was modulated by the frequency range of the sounds with stronger amplitudes elicited by stimuli with high frequency range. Subsequent post hoc analysis of the normalized amplitude of the motion response confirmed the previous finding by excluding the possibility that the frequency range had an overall effect on the waveform, and showing that this effect was instead limited to the motion response. These results support the idea of a modular organization of the motion-onset response with the processing of primary sound motion characteristics being reflected in the early part of the response. Also, the article highlights the importance of specificity in auditory stimulus design.

Absence of direction-specific cross-modal visual-auditory adaptation in motion-onset event-related potentials

Adaptation to visual or auditory motion affects within-modality motion processing as reflected by visual or auditory free-field motion-onset evoked potentials (VEPs, AEPs). Here, a visual-auditory motion adaptation paradigm was used to investigate the effect of visual motion adaptation on VEPs and AEPs to leftward motion-onset test stimuli. Effects of visual adaptation to (i) scattered light flashes, and motion in the (ii) same or in the (iii) opposite direction of the test stimulus were compared. For the motion-onset VEPs, i.e. the intra-modal adaptation conditions, direction-specific adaptation was observed--the change-N2 (cN2) and change-P2 (cP2) amplitudes were significantly smaller after motion adaptation in the same than in the opposite direction. For the motion-onset AEPs, i.e. the cross-modal adaptation condition, there was an effect of motion history only in the change-P1 (cP1), and this effect was not direction-specific--cP1 was smaller after scatter than after motion adaptation to either direction. No effects were found for later components of motion-onset AEPs. While the VEP results provided clear evidence for the existence of a direction-specific effect of motion adaptation within the visual modality, the AEP findings suggested merely a motion-related, but not a direction-specific effect. In conclusion, the adaptation of veridical auditory motion detectors by visual motion is not reflected by the AEPs of the present study.

Discrimination contours for moving sounds reveal duration and distance cues dominate auditory speed perception

Evidence that the auditory system contains specialised motion detectors is mixed. Many psychophysical studies confound speed cues with distance and duration cues and present sound sources that do not appear to move in external space. Here we use the 'discrimination contours' technique to probe the probabilistic combination of speed, distance and duration for stimuli moving in a horizontal arc around the listener in virtual auditory space. The technique produces a set of motion discrimination thresholds that define a contour in the distance-duration plane for different combination of the three cues, based on a 3-interval oddity task. The orientation of the contour (typically elliptical in shape) reveals which cue or combination of cues dominates. If the auditory system contains specialised motion detectors, stimuli moving over different distances and durations but defining the same speed should be more difficult to discriminate. The resulting discrimination contours should therefore be oriented obliquely along iso-speed lines within the distance-duration plane. However, we found that over a wide range of speeds, distances and durations, the ellipses aligned with distance-duration axes and were stretched vertically, suggesting that listeners were most sensitive to duration. A second experiment showed that listeners were able to make speed judgements when distance and duration cues were degraded by noise, but that performance was worse. Our results therefore suggest that speed is not a primary cue to motion in the auditory system, but that listeners are able to use speed to make discrimination judgements when distance and duration cues are unreliable.

Direction-specific adaptation of motion-onset auditory evoked potentials

Auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) to motion onset in humans are dominated by a fronto-central complex, with a change-negative deflection 1 (cN1) and a change-positive deflection 2 (cP2) component. Here the contribution of veridical motion detectors to motion-onset AEPs was investigated with the hypothesis that direction-specific adaptation effects would indicate the contribution of such motion detectors. AEPs were recorded from 33 electroencephalographic channels to the test stimulus, i.e. motion onset of horizontal virtual auditory motion (60° per s) from straight ahead to the left. AEPs were compared in two experiments for three conditions, which differed in their history prior to the motion-onset test stimulus: (i) without motion history (Baseline), (ii) with motion history in the same direction as the test stimulus (Adaptation Same), and (iii) a reference condition with auditory history. For Experiment 1, condition (iii) comprised motion in the opposite direction (Adaptation Opposite). For Experiment 2, a noise in the absence of coherent motion (Matched Noise) was used as the reference condition. In Experiment 1, the amplitude difference cP2 - cN1 obtained for Adaptation Same was significantly smaller than for Baseline and Adaptation Opposite. In Experiment 2, it was significantly smaller than for Matched Noise. Adaptation effects were absent for cN1 and cP2 latencies. These findings demonstrate direction-specific adaptation of the motion-onset AEP. This suggests that veridical auditory motion detectors contribute to the motion-onset AEP.

Electrical neuroimaging during auditory motion aftereffects reveals that auditory motion processing is motion sensitive but not direction selective

Following prolonged exposure to adaptor sounds moving in a single direction, participants may perceive stationary-probe sounds as moving in the opposite direction [direction-selective auditory motion aftereffect (aMAE)] and be less sensitive to motion of any probe sounds that are actually moving (motion-sensitive aMAE). The neural mechanisms of aMAEs, and notably whether they are due to adaptation of direction-selective motion detectors, as found in vision, is presently unknown and would provide critical insight into auditory motion processing. We measured human behavioral responses and auditory evoked potentials to probe sounds following four types of moving-adaptor sounds: leftward and rightward unidirectional, bidirectional, and stationary. Behavioral data replicated both direction-selective and motion-sensitive aMAEs. Electrical neuroimaging analyses of auditory evoked potentials to stationary probes revealed no significant difference in either global field power (GFP) or scalp topography between leftward and rightward conditions, suggesting that aMAEs are not based on adaptation of direction-selective motion detectors. By contrast, the bidirectional and stationary conditions differed significantly in the stationary-probe GFP at 200 ms poststimulus onset without concomitant topographic modulation, indicative of a difference in the response strength between statistically indistinguishable intracranial generators. The magnitude of this GFP difference was positively correlated with the magnitude of the motion-sensitive aMAE, supporting the functional relevance of the neurophysiological measures. Electrical source estimations revealed that the GFP difference followed from a modulation of activity in predominantly right hemisphere frontal-temporal-parietal brain regions previously implicated in auditory motion processing. Our collective results suggest that auditory motion processing relies on motion-sensitive, but, in contrast to vision, non-direction-selective mechanisms.