Functional imaging of auditory scene analysis
Abstract
Our auditory system is constantly faced with the task of decomposing the complex mixture of sound arriving at the ears into perceptually independent streams constituting accurate representations of individual sound sources. This decomposition, termed auditory scene analysis, is critical for both survival and communication, and is thought to underlie both speech and music perception. The neural underpinnings of auditory scene analysis have been studied utilizing invasive experiments with animal models as well as non-invasive (MEG, EEG, and fMRI) and invasive (intracranial EEG) studies conducted with human listeners. The present article reviews human neurophysiological research investigating the neural basis of auditory scene analysis, with emphasis on two classical paradigms termed streaming and informational masking. Other paradigms - such as the continuity illusion, mistuned harmonics, and multi-speaker environments - are briefly addressed thereafter. We conclude by discussing the emerging evidence for the role of auditory cortex in remapping incoming acoustic signals into a perceptual representation of auditory streams, which are then available for selective attention and further conscious processing. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Human Auditory Neuroimaging.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Functional neuroimaging helps to study how the auditory cortex dynamically reshapes acoustic input into perceptual representations that guide decisions.
“Functional neuroimaging helps to study how the auditory cortex dynamically reshapes acoustic input into perceptual representations that guide decisions (Gutschalk and Dykstra 2014; Kothari et al. 2018; Zatorre 2003).”
From Listening forward: emerging roles of bioacoustics in ecology, evolution, and conservation (2026) · cites this paper as Gutschalk and Dykstra 2014
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 127 · Cited by 57
- Authors
- Gutschalk, A., & Dykstra, A. R.
- Affiliations
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Gutschalk, Alexander
- Venue
- Hearing Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-01
- Volume
- 307
- Pages
- 98-110
- ISSN
- 0378-5955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2067440349
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 127
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01EV0712)
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (GU593/3-2)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- auditory scene analysis, auditory stream segregation, informational masking, auditory cortex, auditory selective attention, speech perception, music perception
- MeSH terms
- Acoustic Stimulation, Attention, Auditory Cortex, Auditory Pathways, Auditory Perception, Brain Mapping, Cues, Electroencephalography, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Models, Psychological, Noise, Perceptual Masking, Magnetoencephalography, Pattern Recognition, Physiological
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review