Activation of reward circuit in the contrast of popular and artistic music.

(A) Popular music evoked larger BOLD response in the right putamen (26, 6,2) than artistic music; (B) Artistic music evoked larger BOLD response in the right rACC than popular music (BA24/32, 12,36,0). (C) Mean beta values and SD of the ROI analysis in putamen and right rACC for popular music and artistic music comparing control condition, respectively. Within every single ROI, beta values of both popular music and artistic music conditions were first subtracted by the mean beta value of control condition in the same ROI, before two sample t-test.</p

The Difference between Aesthetic Appreciation of Artistic and Popular Music: Evidence from an fMRI Study

<div><p>To test the hypothesis that pleasure from artistic music is intellectual while that from popular music is physiological, this study investigated the different functional mechanisms between aesthetic appreciation of artistic and popular music using fMRI. 18 male non-musicians were scanned while they performed an aesthetic rating task for excerpts of artistic music, popular music and musical notes playing and singing (control). The rating scores of artistic and popular music excerpts were both significantly higher than that of control materials while the scores of them were not different. The fMRI results showed both artistic and popular conditions activated the VS and vmPFC, compared with control condition. When contrasted popular and artistic condition directly, we found popular music activated right putamen, while artistic music activated right mPFC. By parametric analysis, we found the activation of right putamen tracked the aesthetic ratings of popular music, whereas the BOLD signal in right mPFC tracked the aesthetic ratings of artistic music. These results indicate the reward induced by popular music is closer to a primary reward while that induced by artistic music is closer to a secondary reward. We also found artistic music activated ToM areas, including PCC/PC, arMFC and TPJ, when compared with popular music. And these areas also tracked aesthetic ratings of artistic music but not those of popular music. These results imply that the pleasure from former comes from cognitive empathy. In conclusion, this study gives clear neuronal evidences supporting the view that artistic music is of intelligence and social cognition involved while the popular music is of physiology.</p></div

Regions showing a main effect at p<0.05 with FDR correction at the cluster level for contrasts Popular music > Artistic music and Artistic music>Popular music.

<p>Regions showing a main effect at p<0.05 with FDR correction at the cluster level for contrasts Popular music > Artistic music and Artistic music>Popular music.</p

Regions tracking increasing aesthetic ratings of popular music and artistic music.

<p>Regions tracking increasing aesthetic ratings of popular music and artistic music.</p

Cerebral regions tracking increasing aesthetic rating of popular music and artistic music.

<p>(A) Cerebral regions tracking increasing rating of popular music included right putamen and IFG. (B) Regions tracking increasing rating of artistic music included right rACC, left arMFC and PCC.</p

Brain activation of popular and artistic music vs. control material.

<p>Larger activity in bilateral mOFC and bilateral ventral striatum were found for popular(A) and artistic(B) music than for control material.</p

Cognitive empathy regions were activated in the contrast of artistic vs. popular music.

<p>(A) The regions consisted of left arMFC, left PC/PCC, left angular gyrus, left hippocampus /parahippocampus, and left and right inferior temporal gyrus. (B) Mean beta values and SD of the ROI analysis in left arMFC (-6,36,20), left PC/PCC (-4,-42,46), left angular gyrus (-32,-80,32) and left hippocampus (-28,-22,-14) for popular music and artistic music comparing control condition, respectively. Within every single ROI, beta values of both popular music and artistic music conditions were first subtracted by the mean beta value of control condition in the same ROI, before two sample t-test.</p

Regions showing a main effect at <i>p</i><0.05 with FDR correction at the cluster level for contrasts Popular music > Notes Clip and Artistic music>Notes Clip.

<p>Regions showing a main effect at <i>p</i><0.05 with FDR correction at the cluster level for contrasts Popular music > Notes Clip and Artistic music>Notes Clip.</p

Correlation between pretreatment marker levels and CVX-060 effect.

<p>Representative examples from Table 2 are graphically shown to illustrate the relationship between marker level (mean +/- SEM) and median CVX-060 TGI (%) in training set models. Each dot represents a single XG or PDX model, color coded by tumor type: blue = ovarian, red = RCC, black = CRC. Dashed line indicates lower limit of quantification. r = Pearson’s coefficient, p = p-value.</p

A three-protein model for prediction of TGI.

<p>Least Angle Regression (LAR) method identified 3 markers (Ang1, EGF, & Emmprin) sufficient to build a model to predict CVX-060 TGI. Model performance in the training set (A) and testing set (B) of xenograft lines is shown. Statistical significance was not achieved until combining both sets (C). Each dot represents the model predicted TGI% vs. median observed TGI% of a single xenograft line.</p