Auditory Cortex - Science
Auditory Cortex - Science
74. J. Garcia-Fernàndez, P. W. H. Holland, Nature 370, 86. R. C. Hardison, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 5675 tional Laboratory under contract no. W-7405-ENG-
563 (1994). (1996). 36; and by MEXT, Japan (grants 12201001 to Y.K.,
75. D. E. Ferrier, C. Minguillon, P. W. H. Holland, J. Garcia- 87. K. E. van Holde, K. I. Miller, H. Decker, J. Biol. Chem. 12202001 to N.S.), Japan Society for the Promotion
Fernandez, Evol. Dev. 2, 284 (2000). 276, 15563 (2001). of Science (to Y.S.), Human Frontier Science Program
76. A. Di Gregorio et al., Gene 156, 253 (1995). 88. Y. Satou et al., Development 128, 2893 (2001). (to N.S. and M.L.), and NIH (HD-37105 and NSF
77. M. Gionti et al., Dev. Genes. Evol. 207, 515 (1998). 89. T. Kusakabe et al., Dev. Biol. 242, 188 (2002). IBN-9817258 to M.L.)
78. D. Chourrout, R. Di Lauro, personal communication. 90. N. Harafuji, D. N. Keys, M. Levine, Proc. Natl. Acad. Supporting Online Material
79. O. Hobert, H. Westphal, Trends Genet. 16, 75 Sci. U.S.A. 99, 6802 (2002). www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5601/2157/
(2000). 91. D. N. Keys et al., in preparation. DC1
80. S. I. Tomarev, Int. J. Dev. Biol. 41, 835 (1997). 92. This work was performed under the auspices of the SOM Text
81. G. Krishnan, Indian J. Exp. Biol. 13, 172 (1975). U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science, Bio- Tables S1 to S9
82. S. M. Read, T. Bacic, Science 295, 59 (2002). logical and Environmental Research Program; by the Figures S1 and S2
83. J. Zuo et al., Plant Cell 12, 1137 (2000). University of California, Lawrence Livermore National References
84. N. Lo et al., Curr. Biol. 10, 801 (2000). Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-48,
85. D. R. Nobles, D. K. Romanovicz, R. M. Brown Jr., Plant Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under con-
Physiol. 127, 529 (2001). tract no. DE-AC03-76SF00098, and Los Alamos Na- 1 November 2002; accepted 20 November 2002
text). Using a regression analysis with sepa- Fig. 2. Group conjunction maps
rate sets of regressors to distinguish task ef- showing the consistency with
fects from tonality surface tracking, we iden- which specific structures were
activated across listeners. Con-
tified task- and tonality-sensitive areas (see junction maps of individual lis-
“fMRI analysis procedures” in supporting on- teners, containing the voxels
line text). Tonality regressors were construct- that were activated significantly
ed from the output of a neural network model (P ⬍ 0.001) in all scanning ses-
of the moment-to-moment activation changes sions for that listener, were nor-
on the tonality surface (see “tonality surface malized into a common space
and summed together across lis-
estimation” in supporting online text). teners (see “spatial normaliza-
Our tasks consistently activated several tion” in supporting online text).
regions in the temporal, parietal, frontal, Voxels that were consistently
and limbic lobes as well as the thalamus activated by at least four of the
and cerebellum. The most extensive consis- eight listeners are projected onto
tent activation was along the superior tem- the group’s mean normalized T1
image. (A) Areas sensitive to the
poral gyrus (STG) of both hemispheres, two task regressors (Table 1). (B)
though the extent was greater in the right The only areas whose activity
hemisphere, stretching from the planum patterns were significantly and
temporale to the rostral STG and middle consistently correlated with the
temporal gyrus (Fig. 2A and Table 1). Both tonality regressors both within
the task and the tonality regressors corre- and across listeners were the
rostral portion of the ventrome-
lated significantly and consistently with ac- dial superior frontal gyrus and
tivity in the rostromedial prefrontal cortex, the right orbitofrontal gyrus.
primarily in the rostral and ventral reaches
of the superior frontal gyrus (SFG) (Figs. 2
and 3). The consistent modulation of this individual level, we reconstructed and cate- reconstructed surfaces from each session in-
area in all of our listeners led us to focus on gorized the tonality sensitivity surface (TSS) dicated that the medial prefrontal cortex
this region as a possible site of a tonality for each voxel that exhibited significant re- maintains a distributed topographic represen-
map. sponses (P ⬍ 0.001) in every one of the three tation of the overall tonality surface (Fig. 3).
Tonality-specific responses in the scanning sessions (see “tonality surface Although some voxels exhibited similar TSSs
rostromedial prefrontal cortex. At the estimation” in supporting online text). The from session to session, the global tonality
Lobe Region (Brodmann area) Location (mm) Listeners Cluster Location (mm) Listeners Cluster
at peak size at peak size
x y z (no.) (voxels) x y z (no.) (voxels)
Temporal
STG (22) – 64 –11 10 6 74
STG/Heschl’s gyrus (41/42) –56 –19 9 7 74 52 –11 5 8 163
STG/planum temporale (22) – 68 – 41 15 5 14 64 –30 15 6 163
64 –26 5 6 163
Rostromedial STG 38 15 –35 5 36
Rostroventral MTG (21) 52 0 –35 6 36
Middle MTG/superior temporal sulcus (21) 56 –15 –15 5 163
Ventral MTG (21) 60 –11 –25 6 163
Frontal
Rostroventromedial SFG (10/14) 0 49 0 5 27 4 64 0 5 27
Superior frontal sulcus/frontopolar gyrus (10) 26 64 30 5 3
Lateral orbital gyrus (11) 49 41 –10 5 4
IFG, pars orbitalis (47) 49 45 4 5 3
IFG, pars opercularis (44) 56 19 5 6 3
60 22 20 4 11
Precentral gyrus (6) 49 4 55 5 10
Parietal
Postcentral gyrus (1) 64 –11 25 6 163
Supramarginal gyrus (40) 64 –30 35 6 3
Precuneus (7) 0 – 45 55 5 42 0 – 45 55 5 42
–4 –56 75 6 42
SPG (7) 11 –56 80 5 3
19 – 49 75 6 5
SPG/transverse parietal sulcus (7) –4 –71 60 6 22
Limbic
Collateral sulcus –30 –8 –30 5 10
Hippocampus/collateral sulcus 26 –11 –25 5 23
Other
Cerebellum –4 – 82 –35 5 11
–38 –79 –25 6 19 26 – 86 –30 5 10
45 – 64 – 45 5 8
Mediodorsal thalamic nucleus 0 –11 9 5 3
a beneficial role in coupling the moment-to- probe tone ratings depend, partially, on the pitch 23. A. J. Blood, R. J. Zatorre, P. Bermudez, A. C. Evans,
moment perception of tonal space with cog- distribution statistics of the contexts that precede Nature Neurosci. 2, 382 (1999).
probes (33). 24. M. J. Tramo, J. J. Bharucha, F. E. Musiek, J. Cognit.
nitive, affective, and motoric associations, 8. P. Janata, J. Cognit. Neurosci. 7, 153 (1995). Neurosci. 2, 195 (1990).
which themselves may impose constraints on 9. M. Besson, F. Faı̈ta, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. 25. I. Peretz, A. J. Blood, V. Penhune, R. Zatorre, Brain 124,
the activity patterns within rostral prefrontal Perf. 21, 1278 (1995). 928 (2001).
10. A. D. Patel, E. Gibson, J. Ratner, M. Besson, P. J. 26. J. V. Haxby et al., Science 293, 2425 (2001).
regions (21, 27–29). Holcomb, J. Cognit. Neurosci. 10, 717 (1998). 27. A. R. Damasio, Cognition 33, 25 (1989).
11. S. Koelsch, T. Gunter, A. D. Friederici, E. Schröger, J. 28. J. J. Eggermont, Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 22, 355
References and Notes Cognit. Neurosci. 12, 520 (2000). (1998).
1. R. N. Shepard, Psychol. Rev. 89, 305 (1982). 12. J. J. Bharucha, K. Stoeckig, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. 29. S. Funahashi, Neurosci. Res. 39, 147 (2001).
2. C. L. Krumhansl, Cognitive Foundations of Musical Percept. Perf. 12, 403 (1986). 30. E. Bigand, B. Poulain, B. Tillmann, D. D’Adamo, J. Exp.
Pitch (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1990). 13. H. G. Tekman, J. J. Bharucha, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perf., in press.
3. F. Lerdahl, Tonal Pitch Space (Oxford Univ. Press, New Percept. Perf. 24, 252 (1998). 31. D. Huron, R. Parncutt, Psychomusicology 12, 154
York, 2001). 14. R. Francès, La Perception de la Musique (Vrin, Paris, (1993).
4. C. L. Krumhansl, E. J. Kessler, Psychol. Rev. 89, 334 1958).
32. M. Leman, Music Percept. 17, 481 (2000).
(1982). 15. B. Tillmann, J. J. Bharucha, E. Bigand, Psychol. Rev.
33. N. Oram, L. L. Cuddy, Psychol. Res. 57, 103 (1995).
5. L. B. Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music (Univ. of 107, 885 (2000).
34. We thank T. Laroche for assistance with data collec-
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956). 16. R. J. Zatorre, A. C. Evans, E. Meyer, A. Gjedde, Science
tion. Supported by NIH grant P50 NS17778-18. The
6. The chromatic scale consists of 12 equally sized inter- 256, 846 (1992).
data and stimuli from the experiment are available
vals into which an octave is divided. On a piano, a 17. R. J. Zatorre, A. C. Evans, E. Meyer, J. Neurosci. 14,
on request from the fMRI Data Center at Dartmouth
chromatic scale starting at middle C would be played by 1908 (1994).
College (www.fmridc.org) under accession number
striking adjacent keys until the note C, either one octave 18. B. Maess, S. Koelsch, T. C. Gunter, A. D. Friederici,
2-2002-1139B.
above or below middle C, was reached. Nature Neurosci. 4, 540 (2001).
7. The extent to which tonality representations are 19. The existence of a tonal map that is distributed Supporting Online Material
maintained in long-term or short-term memory within and across cortical areas rather than focused www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5601/2167/
stores, or a combination of the two, is a matter of within a small cortical area may seem paradoxical, DC1
debate. Self-organizing neural network models of im- yet this representational form is predicted by some SOM Text
plicit learning accurately mimic results from a wide models of functional brain organization (27). Figs. S1 to S3
array of experiments that assess tonal knowledge 20. H. Barbas, Brain Res. Bull. 52, 319 (2000). Tables S1 and S2
(15), and harmonic priming experiments directly 21. D. Tranel, A. Bechara, A. R. Damasio, in The New References
highlight the influence of learned tonal structures Cognitive Neurosciences, M. S. Gazzaniga, Ed. (MIT Audio S1
(13, 30). However, models of short-term sensory Press, Cambridge, MA 2000), pp. 1047–1061.
memory account for significant proportions of the 22. H. Barbas, H. Ghashghaei, S. M. Dombrowski, N. L.
variance in probe-tone experiments (31, 32), and Rempel-Clower, J. Comp. Neurol. 410, 343 (1999). 17 July 2002; accepted 27 September 2002