Complementary fMRI and EEG evidence for more efficient neural processing of rhythmic vs. unpredictably timed sounds

N.M. van Atteveldt, G. Musacchia, E. Zion-Golumbic, P. Sehatpour, D.C. Javitt, C.E. Schroeder

    Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review


    The brain's fascinating ability to adapt its internal neural dynamics to the temporal structure of the sensory environment is becoming increasingly clear. It is thought to be metabolically beneficial to align ongoing oscillatory activity to the relevant inputs in a predictable stream, so that they will enter at optimal processing phases of the spontaneously occurring rhythmic excitability fluctuations. However, some contexts have a more predictable temporal structure than others. Here, we tested the hypothesis that the processing of rhythmic sounds is more efficient than the processing of irregularly timed sounds. To do this, we simultaneously measured functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electro-encephalograms (EEG) while participants detected oddball target sounds in alternating blocks of rhythmic (e.g., with equal inter-stimulus intervals) or random (e.g., with randomly varied inter-stimulus intervals) tone sequences. Behaviorally, participants detected target sounds faster and more accurately when embedded in rhythmic streams. The fMRI response in the auditory cortex was stronger during random compared to random tone sequence processing. Simultaneously recorded N1 responses showed larger peak amplitudes and longer latencies for tones in the random (vs. the rhythmic) streams. These results reveal complementary evidence for more efficient neural and perceptual processing during temporally predictable sensory contexts.
    Original languageEnglish
    JournalFrontiers in Psychology
    Issue number1663
    Publication statusPublished - 2015


    Dive into the research topics of 'Complementary fMRI and EEG evidence for more efficient neural processing of rhythmic vs. unpredictably timed sounds'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this