4.8 Article

Norm-Based Coding of Voice Identity in Human Auditory Cortex

Journal

CURRENT BIOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 12, Pages 1075-1080

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.055

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. BBSRC [BB/E003958/1, BB/I022287/1]
  2. ESRC/MRC [RES-060-25-0010]
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/I022287/1, BB/E003958/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. BBSRC [BB/E003958/1, BB/I022287/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Listeners exploit small interindividual variations around a generic acoustical structure to discriminate and identify individuals from their voice-a key requirement for social interactions. The human brain contains temporal voice areas (TVA) [1] involved in an acoustic-based representation of voice identity [2-6], but the underlying coding mechanisms remain unknown. Indirect evidence suggests that identity representation in these areas could rely on a norm-based coding mechanism [4, 7-11]. Here, we show by using fMRI that voice identity is coded in the TVA as a function of acoustical distance to two internal voice prototypes (one male, one female)-approximated here by averaging a large number of same-gender voices by using morphing [12]. Voices more distant from their prototype are perceived as more distinctive and elicit greater neuronal activity in voice-sensitive cortex than closer voices-a phenomenon not merely explained by neuronal adaptation [13, 14]. Moreover, explicit manipulations of distance-to-mean by morphing voices toward (or away from) their prototype elicit reduced (or enhanced) neuronal activity. These results indicate that voice-sensitive cortex integrates relevant acoustical features into a complex representation referenced to idealized male and female voice prototypes. More generally, they shed light on remarkable similarities in cerebral representations of facial and vocal identity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available