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
Journal Club

Revisiting the Contribution of Auditory Cortex to Frequency-Following Responses

Emma Holmes and Björn Herrmann
Journal of Neuroscience 24 May 2017, 37 (21) 5218-5220; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0794-17.2017
Emma Holmes
Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Emma Holmes
Björn Herrmann
Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Björn Herrmann
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Human scalp-recorded frequency-following responses (FFRs), also known as auditory steady-state responses, capture neural responses that synchronize with sound periodicities. FFRs are believed to reflect activity from different combinations of neural generators, depending on the stimulation frequency. A long-standing belief is that auditory cortex is the primary generator of FFRs at modulation rates ∼40 Hz, but that cortical contributions are much weaker for modulation rates faster than ∼70 Hz. This belief is based on converging evidence from animal electrophysiology (Smith et al., 1975), source modeling of FFRs (Herdman et al., 2002; Bidelman, 2015), and estimations of response latencies (Herdman et al., 2002). Thus, FFRs at 70–150 Hz have been thought to predominantly reflect phase-locked activity in the brainstem.

FFRs at 80–140 Hz are sensitive to cognitive factors, including musical training (Musacchia et al., 2007) and language experience (Krishnan et al., 2009, 2010). These findings have sparked substantial interest because they have been assumed to demonstrate that brainstem responses are dynamically modulated by experience, a characteristic that has traditionally been thought to be limited to cortex. Yet, an increasing body of converging evidence suggests that cortical activity may indeed contribute to FFRs at these rates. For example, the initial research into the locations of FFR generators (Herdman et al., 2002; Schoonhoven et al., 2003) found that cortical sources, albeit weaker than brainstem, contribute to FFRs at 80–96 Hz, a finding that has recently been corroborated (Coffey et al., 2016). Also, studies using electrocorticography (ECoG) (Nourski et al., 2013) demonstrate that neurons in Heschl's gyrus can phase lock to modulation rates up to 200 Hz. Consistent with these findings, an fMRI study (Giraud et al., 2000) showed that left superior temporal gyrus responds to stimuli with modulation rates up to 256 Hz. Together, these recent studies reignite the long-standing hypothesis that cortical phase-locking could potentially contribute to FFRs at rates for which FFRs are probably dominated by brainstem sources, calling into doubt the claim that modulations of FFRs are attributable to brainstem processing.

A new study published in The Journal of Neuroscience (Coffey et al., 2017) used the high spatial resolution of fMRI in combination with EEG to investigate the cortical correlates of EEG-recorded FFRs. Coffey et al. (2017) presented speech and music stimuli to participants during two separate recording sessions: one EEG and one fMRI. In separate blocks, participants were presented with multiple repetitions of the speech (/da/ syllable) and music (piano tone) stimuli, which had harmonic structures related to a fundamental frequency of 98 Hz. BOLD activity in bilateral auditory cortices was extracted from the fMRI data. The EEG data were used to calculate FFR phase coherence at the fundamental frequency of the stimuli (i.e., 98 Hz). Coffey et al. (2017) found that the magnitude of BOLD activity in right planum temporale increased with greater FFR phase coherence for both the speech and music stimuli. Based on this correlation, the authors conclude that activity from auditory cortex likely contributes to FFRs at 98 Hz.

Coffey et al. (2017) make a novel contribution to the literature by measuring fMRI and EEG-recorded FFRs in the same participants. This is important because scalp EEG, which is currently the most common method for measuring FFRs, is sensitive to different neural responses and/or generators than ECoG (Buzsáki et al., 2012) and MEG (Ahlfors et al., 2010). Therefore, it is unclear whether the cortical sources identified with ECoG and MEG contribute to EEG-recorded FFRs at 70–200 Hz. Linking EEG-recorded FFRs to fMRI activity, which has high spatial resolution, is thus of great value for the quest to elucidate the neural generators of FFRs. In the following, we extend the discussion on the relationship between EEG-recorded FFRs and BOLD activity in planum temporale, in the context of putative FFR generators, and we suggest possible avenues for future research.

Comparing previous studies, there seems to be some discrepancy in the cortical regions proposed to contribute to FFRs. Coffey et al. (2017) found correlations between FFR phase coherence and the magnitude of BOLD activity in planum temporale, which is posterior to Heschl's gyrus and has, to our knowledge, not previously been shown to phase lock to stimulus rates as fast as 98 Hz. Critically, phase-locked activity in planum temporale is not the only explanation for the observed correlation. For example, the Coffey et al. (2017) motivation for linking BOLD activity to EEG phase coherence comes from animal work showing that extracellularly recorded local field potentials (which are closely related to EEG signals) are related to BOLD signal magnitude (Goense and Logothetis, 2008; Magri et al., 2012). However, studies examining this relationship have calculated local field potential power instead of phase-locked activity. The precise relationship between neural phase-locking, the BOLD signal, and power and phase coherence values extracted from EEG and local field potential recordings is unclear; thus, greater BOLD activity may not be directly related to stronger EEG phase coherence.

Instead of reflecting phase-locked activity in planum temporale, the observed correlation between FFRs and BOLD activity might be explained by a relationship between the precision of brainstem phase-locking and a neural correlate of pitch perception in planum temporale. Greater phase locking at lower levels of the auditory pathway (which would give rise to greater FFR phase coherence) could enhance representations of pitch (Gockel et al., 2011), leading to greater BOLD activity in planum temporale without changes in cortical phase-locking. Importantly, fMRI will pick up on any activity that is correlated with changes in FFRs, which may differ from the activity that underlies FFRs. Thus, correlations between FFRs and BOLD activity do not necessitate planum temporale contributions to FFRs.

Furthermore, the degree to which phase-locked neural activity in auditory cortex is inherited from subcortical (e.g., brainstem) structures is not fully understood. A likely scenario is that phase-locked brainstem activity feeds forward to cortical structures, albeit likely with weaker phase-locking higher up the auditory pathway. Coffey et al. (2017) only analyzed BOLD activity in auditory cortex; thus, the extent to which subcortical BOLD activity correlates with EEG-recorded FFRs is unknown. Under the assumption that only brainstem generators contribute to FFRs, correlations with cortical activity may arise due to inherent correlations between neural responses at different stages of auditory processing. Future studies linking both subcortical and cortical activity to EEG-recorded FFRs are necessary to improve understanding of the relative strengths of brainstem and cortical contributions.

Experiments examining FFRs in older people might be useful for providing another perspective on neural generators of FFRs and for examining the sensitivity of brainstem activity to experience. FFRs to sounds with modulation rates of 100–400 Hz are commonly reduced (but present) in older people (Purcell et al., 2004; Anderson et al., 2012). Animal studies suggest that age-related reductions in FFRs occur in subcortical brain regions, for example, in the inferior colliculus (Shaddock Palombi et al., 2001; Herrmann et al., 2017). Reduced subcortical phase-locking will reduce the phase-locked information that is fed forward to auditory cortex; hence, the neural generators of FFRs may be different in older than younger people. Given that cortical contributions to FFRs >70 Hz are likely small even in younger people, it is possible that reduced phase-locking in older people may cause cortical contributions to be absent in FFRs >70 Hz. Thus, it would be interesting for future studies to compare the neural generators of FFRs in younger and older people. If cortical contributions are much weaker in older individuals, this finding might inspire future studies to examine experience-dependent modulations of brainstem processing by measuring FFRs in older people who have accumulated a lifetime of experience but whose FFRs might be uncontaminated by cortical activity.

In conclusion, Coffey et al. (2017) contribute to the reemerging question of whether cortical activity contributes meaningfully to FFRs at modulation rates commonly assumed to evoke activity dominated by brainstem sources. This debate is fundamental, given that recent studies have assumed that modulations of FFRs (e.g., by experience) reflect changes in brainstem responses. The results of Coffey et al. (2017) are consistent with the idea that cortical activity contributes to FFRs. However, whether cortical activity is detectable in EEG-recorded FFRs is unclear: the auditory cortical regions proposed to contribute differ between studies and the relative strengths of brainstem and cortical contributions remain a topic of debate. In the meantime, to ensure that modulations of FFRs can be attributed to brainstem activity, careful assessment of putative cortical generators is necessary. For example, high-density EEG recordings could be used to estimate the contribution of different sources to FFR modulations. This emerging movement in the literature will undeniably improve knowledge of the neural generators of FFRs and of brainstem processing.

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short reviews of recent JNeurosci articles, written exclusively by students or postdoctoral fellows, summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. If the authors of the highlighted article have written a response to the Journal Club, the response can be found by viewing the Journal Club at www.jneurosci.org. For more information on the format, review process, and purpose of Journal Club articles, please see http://jneurosci.org/content/preparing-manuscript#journalclub.

  • The authors' salaries were supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research MOP 133450 and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 327429-2012. We thank Ingrid S. Johnsrude and Hedwig E. Gockel for comments on the manuscript.

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Emma Holmes, Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, Natural Sciences Centre, Room 120, London, Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada. eholme5{at}uwo.ca

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ahlfors SP,
    2. Han J,
    3. Belliveau JW,
    4. Hämäläinen MS
    (2010) Sensitivity of MEG and EEG to source orientation. Brain Topogr 23:227–232. doi:10.1007/s10548-010-0154-x pmid:20640882
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Anderson S,
    2. Parbery-Clark A,
    3. White-Schwoch T,
    4. Kraus N
    (2012) Aging affects neural precision of speech encoding. J Neurosci 32:14156–14164. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2176-12.2012 pmid:23055485
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Bidelman GM
    (2015) Multichannel recordings of the human brainstem frequency-following response: scalp topography, source generators, and distinctions from the transient ABR. Hear Res 323:68–80. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2015.01.011 pmid:25660195
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Buzsáki G,
    2. Anastassiou CA,
    3. Koch C
    (2012) The origin of extracellular fields and currents: EEG, ECoG, LFP and spikes. Nat Rev Neurosci 13:407–420. doi:10.1038/nrn3241 pmid:22595786
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Coffey EB,
    2. Herholz SC,
    3. Chepesiuk AM,
    4. Baillet S,
    5. Zatorre RJ
    (2016) Cortical contributions to the auditory frequency-following response revealed by MEG. Nat Commun 7:1–11. doi:10.1038/ncomms11070 pmid:27009409
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Coffey EB,
    2. Musacchia G,
    3. Zatorre RJ
    (2017) Cortical correlates of the auditory frequency-following and onset responses: EEG and fMRI evidence. J Neurosci 37:830–838. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1265-16.2017 pmid:28123019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Giraud AL,
    2. Lorenzi C,
    3. Ashburner J,
    4. Wable J,
    5. Johnsrude I,
    6. Frackowiak R,
    7. Kleinschmidt A
    (2000) Representation of the temporal envelope of sounds in the human brain. J Neurophysiol 84:1588–1598. pmid:10980029
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Gockel HE,
    2. Carlyon RP,
    3. Mehta A,
    4. Plack CJ
    (2011) The frequency following response (FFR) may reflect pitch-bearing information but is not a direct representation of pitch. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 12:767–782. doi:10.1007/s10162-011-0284-1 pmid:21826534
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Goense JB,
    2. Logothetis NK
    (2008) Neurophysiology of the BOLD fMRI signal in awake monkeys. Curr Biol 18:631–640. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.054 pmid:18439825
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Herdman AT,
    2. Lins O,
    3. Van Roon P,
    4. Stapells DR,
    5. Scherg M,
    6. Picton TW
    (2002) Intracerebral sources of human auditory steady-state responses. Brain Topogr 15:69–86. doi:10.1023/A:1021470822922 pmid:12537303
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Herrmann B,
    2. Parthasarathy A,
    3. Bartlett EL
    (2017) Aging affects dual encoding of periodicity and envelope shape in rat inferior colliculus neurons. Eur J Neurosci 45:299–311. doi:10.1111/ejn.13463 pmid:27813207
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Krishnan A,
    2. Gandour JT,
    3. Bidelman GM,
    4. Swaminathan J
    (2009) Experience-dependent neural representation of dynamic pitch in the brainstem. Neuroreport 4:408–413. doi:10.1097/WNR.0b013e3283263000 pmid:19223793
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Krishnan A,
    2. Gandour JT,
    3. Bidelman GM
    (2010) The effects of tone language experience on pitch processing in the brainstem. J Neurolinguistics 23:81–95. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.09.001 pmid:20161561
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Magri C,
    2. Schridde U,
    3. Murayama Y,
    4. Panzeri S,
    5. Logothetis NK
    (2012) The amplitude and timing of the BOLD signal reflects the relationship between local field potential power at different frequencies. J Neurosci 32:1395–1407. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3985-11.2012 pmid:22279224
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Musacchia G,
    2. Sams M,
    3. Skoe E,
    4. Kraus N
    (2007) Musicians have enhanced subcortical auditory and audiovisual processing of speech and music. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:15894–15898. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701498104 pmid:17898180
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Nourski KV,
    2. Brugge JF,
    3. Reale RA,
    4. Kovach CK,
    5. Oya H,
    6. Kawasaki H,
    7. Jenison RL,
    8. Howard MA 3rd.
    (2013) Coding of repetitive transients by auditory cortex on posterolateral superior temporal gyrus in humans: an intracranial electrophysiology study. J Neurophysiol 109:1283–1295. doi:10.1152/jn.00718.2012 pmid:23236002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Purcell DW,
    2. John SM,
    3. Schneider BA,
    4. Picton TW
    (2004) Human temporal auditory acuity as assessed by envelope following responses. J Acoust Soc Am 116:3581–3593. doi:10.1121/1.1798354 pmid:15658709
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Schoonhoven R,
    2. Boden CJ,
    3. Verbunt JP,
    4. de Munck JC
    (2003) A whole head MEG study of the amplitude-modulation-following response: phase coherence, group delay and dipole source analysis. Clin Neurophysiol 114:2096–2106. doi:10.1016/S1388-2457(03)00200-1 pmid:14580607
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Shaddock Palombi P,
    2. Backoff PM,
    3. Caspary DM
    (2001) Responses of young and aged rat inferior colliculus neurons to sinusoidally amplitude modulated stimuli. Hear Res 153:174–180. doi:10.1016/S0378-5955(00)00264-1 pmid:11223307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Smith JC,
    2. Marsh JT,
    3. Brown WS
    (1975) Far-field recorded frequency-following responses: evidence for the locus of brainstem sources. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 39:465–472. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(75)90047-4 pmid:52439
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 37 (21)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 37, Issue 21
24 May 2017
  • 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.
Revisiting the Contribution of Auditory Cortex to Frequency-Following Responses
(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
Revisiting the Contribution of Auditory Cortex to Frequency-Following Responses
Emma Holmes, Björn Herrmann
Journal of Neuroscience 24 May 2017, 37 (21) 5218-5220; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0794-17.2017

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
Revisiting the Contribution of Auditory Cortex to Frequency-Following Responses
Emma Holmes, Björn Herrmann
Journal of Neuroscience 24 May 2017, 37 (21) 5218-5220; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0794-17.2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter 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:

  • Author Response to Holmes and Herrmann Journal Club
    Ms. Emily B.J. Coffey, Dr. Gabriella Musacchia and Dr. Robert Zatorre
    Published on: 24 May 2017
  • Published on: (24 May 2017)
    Page navigation anchor for Author Response to Holmes and Herrmann Journal Club
    Author Response to Holmes and Herrmann Journal Club
    • Ms. Emily B.J. Coffey, Author, University of Amsterdam
    • Other Contributors:
      • Dr. Gabriella Musacchia
      • Dr. Robert Zatorre

    A response to this article may be found here.

    Competing Interests: None declared.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Objects from Motion: Moving beyond Static Images with Object Kinematograms
  • Toward an Interpersonal Neuroscience in Technologically Assisted (Virtual) Interactions
  • Complex Interactions between Distinct Theta Oscillatory Patterns during Sleep Deprivation
Show more Journal Club
  • 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.