Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Mini-Reviews

Cortical Mechanisms for Pitch Representation

Timothy D. Griffiths
Journal of Neuroscience 26 September 2012, 32 (39) 13333-13334; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1661-12.2012
Timothy D. Griffiths
1Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4HH, United Kingdom, and
2Wellcome Trust Centre for NeuroImaging, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Pitch is critical to the perception of music and speech and for sound-source segregation, and is one of a number of perceptual attributes that can be associated with a sound object. An understanding of the neural mechanisms for pitch perception is needed to explain important aspects of human perception, but work on neural substrates uses different techniques in different species and it is a moot point whether ‘universal’ pitch mechanisms might exist. In these reviews we examine critically the extent to which this might be the case.

Pitch perception requires neural mechanisms to create a representation corresponding to the percept from sensory cues in the frequency and time domains. Oxenham (2012) will consider the fundamental question of the relationship between sensory properties and perceived pitch that constrains what might be legitimately called a pitch mapping in brain experiments. Sensory cues that are necessary for pitch perception are represented in the ascending auditory pathway and cortex. We consider here the distinct but related question: what are the neural correlates of the pitch percept itself? Cortical mechanisms for pitch representation are implicated by studies at three different levels of neural organization. We take a broad perspective here that includes single-neuron recording in ferret and marmoset (Wang and Walker, 2012), local field-potential recordings from neural ensembles in humans (Kumar and Schönwiesner, 2012), measurement of the fMRI BOLD response related to neural ensemble activity in macaques and humans (Griffiths and Hall, 2012), and the modeling of interactions between neural ensembles in humans (Kumar and Schönwiesner, 2012).

Pitch mappings are first considered at the level of neurons that represent the pitch percept rather than the frequency- or time-structure of the stimulus. Such representation is arguably similar to the coding of perceived color rather than the frequency of light in certain visual neurons (Zeki, 1973). From first principles, a single pitch value might be represented by activity in single neurons that are tuned to a given pitch value or as an ensemble property of a group of less well tuned neurons. Neurons in marmoset auditory cortex (Bendor and Wang, 2005) can show tuning to the pitch of a complex stimulus that is similar to that of a pure tone consistent with representing perceived pitch. Those neurons are precisely tuned. Neurons in ferret auditory cortex (Walker et al., 2011) can represent pitch information in parallel with information about spatial location and timbre (defined as sound perceptual attributes distinct from pitch and location). Neurometric analyses suggest that, based on ferret neurons such as these, a given pitch would need to be coded by multiple neurons (Bizley et al., 2010), in contrast to the highly tuned marmoset pitch neurons. Wang and Walker (2012) consider the issue of neuron versus ensemble codes. Although species differences might be relevant, a possible solution is the existence of distinct neurons that abstract pitch (create a neural correlate of pitch from sensory information) as opposed to neurons that simply represent pitch information after such abstraction.

The second possible level of pitch representation is a pitch area: a specialized cortical region in which pitch is represented, like one of the proposed color centers in the visual cortex of macaque and humans (see Tootell et al., 2003, for one viewpoint). Such an area might contain single neurons that are capable of encoding single pitch values or less selective neurons that encode pitch as an ensemble property. The marmoset neurons above were all demonstrated in one area, while the ferret neurons showing less precise responses to pitch were found in multiple cortical areas. In humans we generally only have access to data based on responses from neural ensembles using fMRI, MEG, EEG, and local field potentials from invasive recordings in neurosurgical subjects. Early human fMRI studies (Patterson et al., 2002; Penagos et al., 2004) focused on single pitch types, while recent work (Barker et al., 2012) emphasizes that a pitch area should have similar responses to the pitch percept regardless of the stimulus with which the pitch happens to be associated. Human fMRI studies suggest localized pitch responses in auditory cortex, but ongoing debate concerns the precise anatomical location of these areas and the relationship between mechanisms for pitch and timbre analysis in auditory cortex. Griffiths and Hall (2012) will discuss these issues. Local field potentials recorded from human auditory cortex (Schönwiesner and Zatorre, 2008; Griffiths et al., 2010), to be discussed by Kumar and Schönwiesner (2012), also demonstrate activity in auditory cortex that is a correlate of the pitch percept in neuronal ensembles.

A third possible level of pitch representation in the cortex is at the level of a constructive system for pitch: a system based on effective connectivity between areas at different levels in a cortical hierarchy. Kumar and Schönwiesner (2012) will present evidence for such organization in human auditory cortex based on modeling of depth-electrode data (Kumar et al., 2011; Kumar and Schönwiesner, 2012).

Work addressing all three levels of organization is now establishing specialized neural mechanisms for pitch analysis in the cortex. The extent to which these might prove to be universal will continue to be debated.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Timothy D. Griffiths at the above address. t.d.griffiths{at}ncl.ac.uk

References

  1. ↵
    1. Barker D,
    2. Plack CJ,
    3. Hall DA
    (2012) Reexamining the evidence for a pitch-sensitive region: a human fMRI study using iterated ripple noise. Cereb Cortex 22:745–753.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Bendor D,
    2. Wang X
    (2005) The neuronal representation of pitch in primate auditory cortex. Nature 436:1161–1165.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bizley JK,
    2. Walker KM,
    3. King AJ,
    4. Schnupp JW
    (2010) Neural ensemble codes for stimulus periodicity in auditory cortex. J Neurosci 30:5078–5091.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Griffiths TD,
    2. Hall DA
    (2012) Mapping pitch representation in neural ensembles with fMRI. J Neurosci 32:13343–13347.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Kumar S,
    2. Schönwiesner M
    (2012) Mapping human pitch representation in a distributed system using depth-electrode recordings and modeling. J Neurosci 32:13343–13347.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Kumar S,
    2. Sedley W,
    3. Nourski KV,
    4. Kawasaki H,
    5. Oya H,
    6. Patterson RD,
    7. Howard MA 3rd.,
    8. Friston KJ,
    9. Griffiths TD
    (2011) Predictive coding and pitch processing in the auditory cortex. J Cogn Neurosci 23:3084–3094.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Oxenham AJ
    (2012) Pitch perception. J Neurosci 32:13335–13338.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Patterson RD,
    2. Uppenkamp S,
    3. Johnsrude IS,
    4. Griffiths TD
    (2002) The processing of temporal pitch and melody information in auditory cortex. Neuron 36:767–776.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Penagos H,
    2. Melcher JR,
    3. Oxenham AJ
    (2004) A neural representation of pitch salience in nonprimary human auditory cortex revealed with functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci 24:6810–6815.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Schönwiesner M,
    2. Zatorre RJ
    (2008) Depth electrode recordings show double dissociation between pitch processing in lateral Heschl's gyrus and sound onset processing in medial Heschl's gyrus. Exp Brain Res 187:97–105.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Tootell RBH,
    2. Tsao D,
    3. Vanduffel W
    (2003) Neuroimaging weighs in: humans meet macaques in “primate” visual cortex. J Neurosci 23:3981–3989.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Walker KM,
    2. Bizley JK,
    3. King AJ,
    4. Schnupp JW
    (2011) Multiplexed and robust representations of sound features in auditory cortex. J Neurosci 31:14565–14576.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Wang X,
    2. Walker KM
    (2012) Neural mechanisms for the abstraction and use of pitch information in auditory cortex. J Neurosci 32:13339–13342.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Zeki SM
    (1973) Colour coding in rhesus monkey prestriate cortex. Brain Res 53:422–427.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 32 (39)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 32, Issue 39
26 Sep 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Cortical Mechanisms for Pitch Representation
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Cortical Mechanisms for Pitch Representation
Timothy D. Griffiths
Journal of Neuroscience 26 September 2012, 32 (39) 13333-13334; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1661-12.2012

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Cortical Mechanisms for Pitch Representation
Timothy D. Griffiths
Journal of Neuroscience 26 September 2012, 32 (39) 13333-13334; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1661-12.2012
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Mapping Pitch Representation in Neural Ensembles with fMRI
  • Mapping Human Pitch Representation in a Distributed System Using Depth-Electrode Recordings and Modeling
Show more MINI-REVIEWS
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.