Display options
Cite
Lu X, Ho HT, Liu F, et al. Intonation processing deficits of emotional words among Mandarin Chinese speakers with congenital amusia: an ERP study. Front Psychol. 2015;6:385doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00385.
Lu, X., Ho, H. T., Liu, F., Wu, D., & Thompson, W. F. (2015). Intonation processing deficits of emotional words among Mandarin Chinese speakers with congenital amusia: an ERP study. Frontiers in psychology, 6385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00385
Lu, Xuejing, et al. "Intonation processing deficits of emotional words among Mandarin Chinese speakers with congenital amusia: an ERP study." Frontiers in psychology vol. 6 (2015): 385. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00385
Lu X, Ho HT, Liu F, Wu D, Thompson WF. Intonation processing deficits of emotional words among Mandarin Chinese speakers with congenital amusia: an ERP study. Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 09;6:385. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00385. eCollection 2015. PMID: 25914659; PMCID: PMC4391227.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 09;6:385. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00385. eCollection 2015.

Intonation processing deficits of emotional words among Mandarin Chinese speakers with congenital amusia: an ERP study.

Frontiers in psychology

Xuejing Lu, Hao Tam Ho, Fang Liu, Daxing Wu, William F Thompson

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Macquarie University Sydney, NSW, Australia ; Medical Psychological Institute, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University Changsha, China.
  2. Department of Psychology, Macquarie University Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  3. Department of Speech, Hearing and Phonetic Sciences, University College London London, UK.
  4. Medical Psychological Institute, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University Changsha, China.

PMID: 25914659 PMCID: PMC4391227 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00385

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Congenital amusia is a disorder that is known to affect the processing of musical pitch. Although individuals with amusia rarely show language deficits in daily life, a number of findings point to possible impairments in speech prosody that amusic individuals may compensate for by drawing on linguistic information. Using EEG, we investigated (1) whether the processing of speech prosody is impaired in amusia and (2) whether emotional linguistic information can compensate for this impairment.

METHOD: Twenty Chinese amusics and 22 matched controls were presented pairs of emotional words spoken with either statement or question intonation while their EEG was recorded. Their task was to judge whether the intonations were the same.

RESULTS: Amusics exhibited impaired performance on the intonation-matching task for emotional linguistic information, as their performance was significantly worse than that of controls. EEG results showed a reduced N2 response to incongruent intonation pairs in amusics compared with controls, which likely reflects impaired conflict processing in amusia. However, our EEG results also indicated that amusics were intact in early sensory auditory processing, as revealed by a comparable N1 modulation in both groups.

CONCLUSION: We propose that the impairment in discriminating speech intonation observed among amusic individuals may arise from an inability to access information extracted at early processing stages. This, in turn, could reflect a disconnection between low-level and high-level processing.

Keywords: ERP; conflict processing; congenital amusia; intonation processing; pitch perception

References

  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Nov 13;109(46):19027-32 - PubMed
  2. Front Psychol. 2011 Jun 17;2:120 - PubMed
  3. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994 May;92(3):238-52 - PubMed
  4. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 May;10(5):204-11 - PubMed
  5. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Dec;9(12):585-94 - PubMed
  6. Science. 1998 May 1;280(5364):747-9 - PubMed
  7. Brain Cogn. 2005 Dec;59(3):310-3 - PubMed
  8. Cereb Cortex. 2011 Apr;21(4):911-9 - PubMed
  9. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e30374 - PubMed
  10. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Nov;124(5):3235-48 - PubMed
  11. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Nov;999:58-75 - PubMed
  12. J Exp Child Psychol. 2002 Oct;83(2):111-30 - PubMed
  13. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Feb 16;96(4):1680-5 - PubMed
  14. Science. 2004 Feb 13;303(5660):1023-6 - PubMed
  15. Front Psychol. 2010 Dec 27;1:236 - PubMed
  16. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Dec;8(12):539-46 - PubMed
  17. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov 11;100(23):13722-7 - PubMed
  18. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Oct 2;104(40):15894-8 - PubMed
  19. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Jan 06;8:1029 - PubMed
  20. Neuropsychologia. 2011 Oct;49(12):3512-6 - PubMed
  21. Neuron. 2002 Jan 17;33(2):185-91 - PubMed
  22. Neuropsychologia. 2011 Jul;49(9):2766-75 - PubMed
  23. Front Psychol. 2011 Jun 29;2:142 - PubMed
  24. Nat Neurosci. 2007 Apr;10(4):420-2 - PubMed
  25. Ann Neurol. 2005 Sep;58(3):478-82 - PubMed
  26. Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev. 2003 Jun;2(2):115-29 - PubMed
  27. Nat Neurosci. 2003 Jul;6(7):674-81 - PubMed
  28. Psychophysiology. 1987 Jul;24(4):375-425 - PubMed
  29. Emotion. 2004 Mar;4(1):46-64 - PubMed
  30. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 May;7(5):187-189 - PubMed
  31. Neuropsychologia. 2010 Jul;48(9):2630-9 - PubMed
  32. Neuroimage. 2004 Apr;21(4):1242-51 - PubMed
  33. Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):624-52 - PubMed
  34. Biol Psychol. 2013 Mar;92(3):464-79 - PubMed
  35. J Neurosci Methods. 2004 Mar 15;134(1):9-21 - PubMed
  36. Cereb Cortex. 2002 Aug;12(8):840-6 - PubMed
  37. Brain. 2009 May;132(Pt 5):1277-86 - PubMed
  38. Physiol Behav. 2002 Dec;77(4-5):477-82 - PubMed
  39. Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Oct;162(10):1833-9 - PubMed
  40. Psychophysiology. 2008 Jan;45(1):152-70 - PubMed
  41. Cogn Emot. 2000 Jan 1;14(1):61-92 - PubMed
  42. Biol Psychol. 2011 Apr;87(1):122-7 - PubMed
  43. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):917-24 - PubMed
  44. Brain. 2013 May;136(Pt 5):1639-61 - PubMed
  45. Brain. 2010 Sep;133(9):2635-42 - PubMed
  46. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jul;1169:191-4 - PubMed
  47. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:621-47 - PubMed
  48. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Sep 15;90(18):8722-6 - PubMed
  49. Neuropsychologia. 2010 Oct;48(12):3661-4 - PubMed
  50. Biol Psychol. 1994 Sep;38(1):73-90 - PubMed
  51. Curr Biol. 2006 Nov 7;16(21):R904-6 - PubMed
  52. Mem Cognit. 2012 Oct;40(7):1109-21 - PubMed
  53. Psychol Rev. 2004 Oct;111(4):931-59 - PubMed
  54. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2003 Mar;3(1):17-26 - PubMed
  55. Front Psychol. 2012 Jul 09;3:233 - PubMed
  56. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Mar;80(3):381-96 - PubMed
  57. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Jan;10(1):24-30 - PubMed
  58. Brain. 2010 Jun;133(Pt 6):1682-93 - PubMed
  59. Brain Lang. 1998 Jan;61(1):123-44 - PubMed
  60. Psychol Bull. 1985 Jul;98(1):185-99 - PubMed
  61. Behav Brain Res. 2011 Jun 1;219(2):382-6 - PubMed
  62. Psychophysiology. 2011 Feb;48(2):229-40 - PubMed
  63. Nature. 1999 Nov 11;402(6758):179-81 - PubMed
  64. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Suppl. 1995;44:102-9 - PubMed
  65. Brain. 2002 Feb;125(Pt 2):238-51 - PubMed
  66. Curr Biol. 2002 Jun 25;12(12):R420-1 - PubMed
  67. Biol Psychol. 2009 Jan;80(1):95-104 - PubMed
  68. Psychol Bull. 1996 Jul;120(1):3-24 - PubMed
  69. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jul;1169:490-3 - PubMed

Publication Types