Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 12114–12122

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Brain processing of vocal sounds in advertising: A functional magnetic

resonance imaging (fMRI) study
Mohamed M. Mostafa
Gulf University for Science and Technology, College of Business, West Mishref, Kuwait

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), this study aimed at investigating the neural mech-
Advertising anisms associated with human and non-human sounds’ perception in advertising. The study employed a
Consumer neuropsychology block design paradigm in which participants heard human versus non-human sounds in different sets of
fMRI advertisements. The results showed that, compared to nonhuman sounds, human sounds elicited greater
Human auditory cortex
activation in several areas in or around the primary auditory cortex (t > 5.16, p < 0.001). This result sug-
Speech perception
gests that different types of sounds are processed in different functional brain pathways. The existence of
voice-selective areas in the brain lends strong support to the face perception neurocognitive model which
proposes that visual, affective and linguistic information are processed in different cortical regions in the
brain.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction stronger activation in specific areas of the brain in a way quite

Our brain’s ability to recognize different categories of sounds is
present from birth (Benson et al., 2001). For example, Purhonen,
Kilpelainen-Lees, Valkonen-Korhonen, Karhu, and Lehtonen
(2004) suggest that infants’ brains normally allocate more atten-
tion to their own mothers’ voices compared to unfamiliar voices.
Voice recognition plays also an important role in adults’ social
interactions. For instance, humans are able to use voice cues to at-
tend to a target speech in a noisy environment (the cocktail-party
effect). This implies that humans often employ voice recognition
tactics to process different types of information (Litong-Palima,
Violanda, & Saloma, 2004). In fact self-voice recognition constitutes
an important part of self-recognition (e.g. Rosa, Lassonde, Pinard,
Keenan, & Belin, 2008).
Recent advances in fMRI techniques have revolutionized our
understanding of the brain processing of human and non-human
sounds perception (Belin, Zatorre, & Ahad, 2002). Several neuroim-
aging and neuropsychological studies have used fMRI techniques
to study certain brain regions’ activation while attending to various
auditory stimuli (e.g. Binder et al., 2000; Degerman, Rinne, Salmi,
Salonen, & Alho, 2006). fMRI evidence suggests that the superior
temporal gyrus (STG) and the superior temporal sulcus (STS) are
greatly activated when processing human versus non-human
sounds such as animal, machine, and rain sounds (e.g. Belin,
Zatorre, Lafaille, Ahad, & Pike, 2000; Demonet et al., 1992). In these
studies, human sounds have been found to elicit significantly
E-mail address: moustafa.m@gust.edu.kw
similar to the visual system’s activation by certain stimuli such
as color or motion.
In this study we aimed to (1) identify the cortical regions that
selectively response to human versus non-human sounds in adver-
tising; and (2) test whether the face perception neurocognitive
model is supported within advertising context. Based on previous
research conducted so far, we hypothesize significantly greater
activation in the STG and the STS areas when attending to human
compared to non-human sounds.
2. Literature review
In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the appli-
cations of neuroimaging methods to marketing (e.g. Butler,
2008). In fact the marriage between cognitive neuroscience and
marketing has resulted in creating a new marketing sub-discipline
known in the literature as neuromarketing or consumer neurosci-
ence (Fugate, 2007). Neuromarketing has been defined as ‘‘the
application of neuroscientific methods to analyze and understand
human behavior in relation to markets and marketing exchanges’’
(Lee, Broderick, & Chamberlain, 2007, p. 200). The major aim of this
new field is to apply neurological findings to consumer behavior
using neuroscientific methods such as fMRI (Stoll, Baecke, &
Kenning, 2008). It has been argued that using fMRI to investigate
which areas in a consumer’s brain are activated in response to a
specific marketing stimulus can provide a much more honest indi-
cator of their cognition compared to traditional marketing research
tools such as focus groups and questionnaires (Senior, Smyth,

0957-4174/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.04.003
 M.M. Mostafa / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 12114–12122
Cooke, Shaw, & Peel, 2007). This is because unlike conventional
marketing research methods, neuroimaging data are much less
susceptible to social desirability and ‘‘interviewer’s’’ effect (Mast
& Zaltman, 2005).
Although the use of fMRI techniques in marketing is still in its
infancy, it seems that results are very promising. For example, in
a classical fMRI study examining how brand information affects
taste perception of sensorily similar products, McClure et al.
(2004) found that the majority of respondents selected Coke over
Pepsi in a blind tasting test. However, when the brand name was
revealed, around 75% of the respondents preferred Coke. This latter
choice also correlated with strong brain activation in areas such as
the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex-areas responsible for
memory and higher cognition functions. Thus, this fMRI experi-
ment shows that taste as a functional preference can be overridden
by brand preferences retrieved from consumers’ long term mem-
ory at the choice moment. Other brand studies involving fMRI
examined neural correlates of brand choice (Yoon, Gutchess, Fein-
berg, & Polk, 2006), the influence of culture on the neural ‘‘favorite
brand-effect’’ (Schaefer & Rotte, 2010), and the neural mechanism
behind brand loyalty (Deppe et al., 2005).
A series of fMRI studies have recently attempted to test
(Damasio, 1994, 1996) somatic marker hypothesis within market-
ing context. The somatic marker hypothesis proposes that plea-
surable or aversive somatic markers associated with internal
and/or external stimuli can function to guide behavior by biasing
selections. The somatic marker hypothesis challenges the eco-
nomic rationality concept by assuming that emotions and uncon-
scious feelings may be critical in preference judgments since the
somatic markers might be crucial even in the absence of an
advantage or a disadvantage associated with the response alter-
natives (Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1997). Schaefer,
Barens, Heinze and Rotte (2006) and Schaefer and Rotte (2007a)
hypothesized that since brands may function as external stimuli,
neural substrates of brands are involved in generating somatic
markers. Using fMRI blocked experimental design in which both
familiar and unfamiliar car logos were shown to participants,
the authors found that culturally familiar brands generates in-
creased activation in the medial prefrontal cortex. This result sup-
ports the somatic marker hypothesis which claims, based on
lesion studies, that the ventromedial prefrontal cortex might play
an important role in generating somatic markers since this brain
region is known to store information related to past rewards and
punishments (e.g. Knutson, Fong, Bennett, & Adams, 2003; Paulus
& Frank, 2003).
The first fMRI study to investigate neural correlates related to
product attractiveness was conducted by Erk, Spitzer, Wunderlich,
Galley, and Walter (2002). The authors found that reward-related
brain areas such as the left anterior cingulate, the left orbitofrontal,
and bilateral prefrontal cortex, as well as in the right ventral stria-
tum are activated by products symbolizing wealth and social status.
In a similar vein, Stoll et al. (2008) used fMRI to investigate neural
correlates of attractive packages. The authors found that attractive
packages resulted in more activation in reward and attention-rele-
vant brain regions, whereas unattractive packages activating brain
regions associated with aversion. This result lends strong support to
the recent neuroscience findings which claim that different visual
stimuli trigger varying levels of attention (e.g. Aharon et al., 2001)
and such visual attention has a significant influence on preferences
(Shimojo, Simion, Shimojo, & Scheier, 2003).
Few fMRI studies have investigated neural correlates of pricing.
For example, Plassmann, O’Doherty, Shiv and Rangel (2008) exam-
ined the influence of pricing on the neural activity and perceived re-
ward. In this study, participants rated the pleasantness of samples
of wines while presented with their corresponding prices. The
authors found increased activation in reward-related areas in the
12115
subjects’ brains such as the medial prefrontal cortex and the rostral
anterior cingulated cortex when they were led to believe that they
were drinking more expensive wines, even though all wines were
the same in reality. The authors concluded that a product’s utility
does not only depend on intrinsic factors such as composition or
thirst, but also on extrinsic factors that can be manipulated by mar-
keters. In a similar vein, Knutson, Rick, Wimmer, Prelec, and Loe-
wenstein (2007) used fMRI to study brain activation related to
negative price effects. Participants in this study were presented
with a product while solving an exercise. Later on the correspond-
ing price information of the product was presented and participants
were asked whether they would like to buy the product. The
authors found that high prices caused increased activation in brain
areas associated with loss anticipation such as the insula, while low
prices activated areas in the brain responsible for gain processing
such as the nucleus accumbens. This result corroborates neuroscie-
tific studies examining examining neural correlates of gain (e.g.
Knutson & Peterson, 2005) and loss anticipation (e.g. Sanfy, Rilling,
Aronson, Nystrom, & Cohen, 2003).
Several neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies have at-
tempted to investigate how advertising influence consumers’ brain
activity (Kenning, Plassmann, & Ahlert, 2007; Plassmann, Ambler,
Braeutigam, & Kenning, 2007). For example, Ambler, Ioannides,
and Rose (2000) used magnetoencephalography (MEG) to investi-
gate consumers’ recall of affective (i.e. drama, suspense and hu-
mor) versus cognitive (infomercial) TV commercials. The authors
found that affect-related stimuli in TV ads activated consumers’
anterior and posterior cingulate cortex. The affective ads also elic-
ited greater activation in the ventromedial frontal lobes (VMFL)
and increased the recall rate three weeks after viewing. In a similar
experimental design using MEG, Ioannides et al. (2000) found that
cognitive-related commercial stimuli greatly activated posterior
parietal and superior prefrontal cortices while affect-related com-
mercial stimuli greatly activates brain emotion regions such as the
amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortices.
Similar recent consumer neuroscience studies have focused on
linking emotional response elicited by TV commercials to certain
brain regions. For example, it has been reported that familiar brand
preferences and brand logos trigger greater activation in emotions
and self-reward regions of the brain (Deppe et al., 2005; Erk et al.,
2002; McClure et al., 2004; Schaefer & Rotte, 2007b). Using EEG
and galvanic skin measures, Ohme, Reykowska, Wiener, and Chor-
omanska (2009) studied emotional and arousal levels in ‘‘gesture’’
versus ‘‘no-gesture’’ ads. The authors found that gesture ads elic-
ited greater activity in the left and right frontal cortex of the brain.
Another stream of research has found that emotional response to
TV commercials is multidimensional (pleasure-arousal-domi-
nance). Using fMRI analysis, this line of research has found that
the pleasure dimension is associated with greater activity in areas
such as the inferior frontal gyri while the arousal dimension is
associated with activation in regions such as the right superior
temporal gyrus (Morris et al., 2009).
Using electroencephalography (EEG), Rossiter, Silberstein, Har-
ris, and Nield (2001) found that TV ads that generated fast left fron-
tal hemisphere activity were better recalled. Based on this result,
the authors concluded that, contrary to previous research, the left
hemisphere of the brain is responsible for transferring visual infor-
mation from the short-term memory to the long-term memory.
This implies that TV ads may be selected based on the left hemi-
sphere’s electrical sensitivity. Several authors have also used high
resolution EEG to investigate brain neural response to visual scenes
in TV commercials (Astolfi et al., 2008, 2009; Fallani et al., 2009).
Results suggest that TV commercials remembered elicited high
cortical activity in the frontal and parietal areas of the brain com-
pared to TV commercials that were forgotten. The results also sug-
gest that parietal areas (BA 5, 7 and 40) are central to receiving
12116 M.M. Mostafa / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 12114–12122
Fig. 1. Auditory data realignment.
incoming flow of information from cortical networks in the brain
during the memory encoding process related to TV commercials.
Similarly, several neuropsychological studies have recently
investigated other issues related to the brain processing of adver-
tising stimuli. For example, Stallen, Smidts, Rijpkema, Smit, and
Klucharev (2010) investigated celebrity effect on brain activation,
Langleben et al. (2009) studied brain processing of ‘‘sensation va-
lue’’ ads, Vance and Virtue (2011) examined the unique contribu-
tion of each cerebral hemisphere during metaphoric ad
comprehension and Treleaven-Hassard et al. (2010) investigated
the automatic attention to interactive TV commercials.
From this brief literature review we find that although several
studies have dealt with the neural correlates of the brain reaction
to advertising stimuli, no previous studies, to the best of our
knowledge, have dealt with the brain processing of vocal sounds
in advertising. In this study we fill this research gap by using fMRI
analysis to investigate the neural correlates of human vs. non-hu-
man sounds in advertising.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
Participants were fifteen monolingual English speakers (age
range 21–45 years, mean 31.27 years; SD = 5.87). All participants
Fig. 2. Auditory data mutual information co-registration.
were right-handed as assessed by the Edinburgh Handedness
Inventory (Oldfield, 1971) with no neurological or audiological
conditions. Because of the nature of the experiment, participants
with former training in phonetics or audiology were excluded.
Claustrophobia, hypertension, diabetes or any psychiatric disease
also represented exclusion criteria. Following Dong et al. (2005),
informed written consent was obtained from each participant after
a full 15 min pre-scan training session. Although the sample size in
this study is atypical in behavioral studies, simulation studies have
shown that twelve participants in fMRI studies are enough to
achieve 80% statistical power (Desmond & Glover, 2002; Murphy
& Garavan, 2004). Our sample is also representative of similar par-
adigm fMRI studies (e.g. Yoon et al., 2006).
3.2. Task and stimuli
Experimental task was conducted in a quiet room where partic-
ipants were placed supine in the MRI scanner. The Presentation
software package (Neurobehavioral Systems, Albany, CA) was used
to deliver the auditory digitized stimuli at clearly audible levels.
Sound files included samples of radio commercials arranged in
30-s block durations, corresponding to one of two experimental
conditions (human vs. non-human sounds). Each active block rep-
resenting one of the two listening conditions was interleaved with
a 15-s resting period. The auditory localizer scan presented a fixed
pseudorandom order of a total of eight blocks of human vocaliza-
tion ads and a total of eight blocks of non-human sounds ads. Scan-
ner noise during the resting period was included as a control or
baseline condition in the experimental design (Fecteau, Armony,
Joanette, & Belin, 2004).
Human sounds ads were obtained in a manner to represent
different individuals of both sexes and of all ages. To avoid the
recency effect, ads presented were all broadcasted more than
10 years ago (Morris et al., 2009). Non-human sounds ads were
selected to represent a wide range of environmental sounds such
as animals, machines, rain, streams, cars, musical instruments,
etc. (e.g. Belin et al., 2002; Bergerbest, Ghahremani, & Gabrieli,
2004). Since several researchers have shown that calling partici-
pants’ attention during auditory tasks may generate increased acti-
vation in brain areas responsible for processing auditory stimuli
(e.g. Jancke, Mirzazade, & Shah, 1999), participants were scanned
while listening passively to the experimental stimuli. Meyer, Zys-
set, von Cramon, and Alter (2005) used a similar strategy to ‘‘avoid
a confound between stimulus perception and attentional
demands’’ (p. 295). However, it should be noted that another
stream of research has found that unattended sounds activates
the human auditory cortex in a similar way to attended sounds
(e.g. Petkov et al., 2004).
 M.M. Mostafa / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 12114–12122
Fig. 3. Auditory data design matrix.
3.3. Data acquisition
Scanning was performed on a 3-Tesla Siemens Trio scanner
(Siemens Magnetom Vision, Erlangen, Germany) with an eight-
channel array head coil optimized for whole brain echo planar
imaging. As a standard procedure, a strip-fixation of the forehead
to the coil and a vacuum pad were used to minimize head motion
artifacts. For anatomical localization, high resolution T1-weighted
anatomical scan images were first acquired (TR 1900 ms, TE
5.57 ms, flip angle 11°). This was followed by one series of 111
Fig. 4. Contrast and statistical parametric maps showing bilateral activation of auditory cortex for the auditory vs. rest conditions.
12117
functional images using echo planar imaging (EPI) sequence (TR
3000 ms, TE 33 ms, 39 slices, voxel size 3  3  3 mm, 64  64 ma-
trix, flip angle 90°). Finally, a block design containing 2 fMRI runs
was employed to acquire functional images. For each participant
a complete fMRI session took approximately 10 min.
3.4. fMRI data preprocessing
fMRI Data preprocessing and analysis were conducted using the
SPM8 software package (Welcome Trust Center for Neuroimaging,
University College London) running under MATLAB Version 7.7
(Mathworks, Natick, MA). High resolution statistical activation
maps showing brain’s regions of interest were displayed using
the Multi-Image Analysis GUI (MANGO) image processing software
package (e.g. Lancaster et al., 2010; http://ric.uthscsa.edu/mango/).
Following Lee and Rudebeck (2010), a number of steps were imple-
mented: (1) the acquired time series datasets were realigned to the
first image in each session to correct for head motion artifacts and/
or inter-scan movement. This spatial transformation routine rea-
ligns a single-subject time series of images to the central volume
using a rigid body least square approach (Friston, Frith, Frac-
kowiak, & Turner, 1995). As shown in Fig. 1 the amount of absolute
translational or rotational head movement did not exceed the rec-
ommended threshold of 3.0 mm for any participant in any direc-
tion (Dommes et al., 2009). By convention, translational effects
comprise movements from left-to-right (x-axis), forward-to-back
(y-axis), and top-to-bottom in the slice acquisition direction
(z-axis). Rotational effects comprise turns around the x-axis or
(pitch), around the y-axis (roll), and around the z-axis (yaw)
(Huettel, Song, & McCarthy, 2009); (2) a co-registration procedure
between anatomical and functional data acquired was imple-
mented. The aim of this procedure is to maximize the mutual infor-
mation obtained (Jenkinson, Bannister, Brady, & Smith, 2002).
Fig. 2 shows that the procedure successfully corrected for image
distortions due to inhomogeneities in the magnetic field; (3) a
mesh deformation approach was used to segment brain matter
into gray and white matter; (4) a 4.0 mm isotropic Gaussian kernel
of full width at half maximum (FWHM) was applied to smooth
functional images. An FWHM smoothing of 4 mm or lower have
been reported to produce high resolution images compared to
12118 M.M. Mostafa / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 12114–12122

Fig. 5. Statistical activation maps showing regions of significantly greater activation for auditory compared to rest conditions using a threshold of p = .05.

the SPM8 default of FWHM = 8 mm (de Beeck, 2010); (5) a high-
pass filter was applied to each voxel in the fMRI time series data
to remove low frequency noise resulting from cardiac and respira-
tory noise; and finally (6) each fMRI data set was normalized to the
standard stereotaxic space atlas (Talairach & Tourneau, 1988)
based on the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) template.
However, it should be noted that although the Talairach and the
MNI templates are quite similar, they are not identical (Kenning
& Plassmann, 2005).
average activity in the fMRI session. As proposed by Belin et al.
(2000), statistical parametric maps generated to determine regions
of significant brain activation were corrected for multiple compar-
isons across the brain using a family-wise error (FWE) with a
threshold of p = 0.05.
4. Results
4.1. Auditory vs. rest (Experiment 1)

3.5. fMRI data statistical analysis
A fixed-effects general linear model based on least square esti-
mation was fit for each subject. Following Lattner, Meyer, and
Friederici (2005), a hemodynamic response function (HRF) design
matrix with a response delay of 6 s was generated. This delay is
routinely used in fMRI studies since it is known that there is usu-
ally a delay of 3–6 s in cerebral blood flow (CBF) response to brain
activation (Friston et al., 1995). Fig. 3 shows the design matrix cor-
responding to the experimental design used in this study. The ma-
trix included six regressors and the last two columns model the
Fig. 4 depicts the SPM8 statistical results when comparing the
auditory stimulus vs. rest conditions. It is clear from the figure that
the BOLD-activated regions in the brain correspond to the known
areas of the primary auditory cortex. The statistical activation
maps depicted in Fig. 5 shows that compared to the baseline/scan-
ner noise, auditory stimuli activated a large portion of the superior
temporal gyrus (STG) bilaterally (F = 16.44, p < 0.05 corrected).
Table 1 panel (a) shows the major areas activated for the auditory
condition collapsed across the two stimulus types vs. rest condi-
tion. This result is in line with recently reported fMRI studies. For
example, when comparing participants’ response during silent

Table 1
Activation observed in brain regions involved in ads’ auditory processing.

Anatomical location Brain side x y z Exp. 1 F-value Exp. 2 t-value

Panel (a)
Auditory activation > baseline
STG R 60 20 10 243.7
52 4 6 197.9
52 16 2 187.9
STG L 60 28 12 223.2
45 22 5 161.3
48 4 0 142.0
Panel (b)
Human sounds > nonhuman sounds
STS R 66 32 4 7.4
50 36 8 7.0
62 8 2 7.1
STS L 56 0 6 6.8
58 16 6 5.0
56 14 4 6.7

Auditory activation > baseline statistics.

Height threshold: F = 16.44, p = 0.000 (0.05); Degrees of freedom (2, 206); Expected voxel per cluster (K) = 1.005; Expected number of clusters (G) = 0.005; FWHM = 7.4, 7.6,
7.1; x, y, z: 3.7, 3.8, 3.6 (voxels).
Human sounds > nonhuman sounds statistics.
Height threshold: T = 5.16, p = 0.000 (0.05); Degrees of freedom (1, 206); Expected voxel per cluster (K) = 1.248; Expected number of clusters (G) = 0.005; FWHM = 7.4, 7.6,
7.1; x, y, z: 3.7, 3.8, 3.6 (voxels).
 M.M. Mostafa / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 12114–12122 12119

Fig. 6. Contrast and statistical parametric maps showing bilateral activation of auditory cortex for the human vs. non-human speech conditions.

periods against listening to Shepard’s tones, Shimizu et al. (2007)
reported greater bilateral activation in the primary auditory cortex.
In another study comparing speech and non-speech perception in
the brain, Benson et al. (2001) reported several regions with high
activation, including the left inferior frontal gyrus and the posterior
superior temporal gyrus (pSTG). The activation in our study seems
to be quasi-symmetrical across the right and left hemispheres
which is in line with several neuroimaging studies comparing
speech sounds to a silent baseline condition (e.g. Binder et al.,
2000; Dehaene et al., 1997; Mazoyer et al., 1993).
4.2. Human vs. non-human sounds (Experiment 2)
Fig. 6 depicts the SPM8 statistical results when comparing the
human against non-human sounds stimuli. It is clear from the fig-
ure that human sounds in ads resulted in greater bilateral activa-
tion in STG and STS regions. The statistical activation maps
depicted in Fig. 7 shows that compared to non-human sounds,
human auditory stimuli activated a large portion of the STG and
STS bilaterally (t = 5.16, p < 0.05 corrected). The 90% CI shown in
Fig. 8 indicates a statistically significant difference between the
two conditions. Table 1 panel (b) shows major areas activated by
human sounds as compared to non-human sounds while Fig. 9
shows the grand averaged and spatially normalized statistical
parametric maps for all brain areas activated by human vs. non-hu-
man sounds. This result is in line with recently reported fMRI stud-
ies. For example, when comparing participants’ response to human
versus non-human sounds, Faceteau et al. (2004) reported bilateral
greater sensitivity in the human superior temporal sulcus (STS)
when participants listened to human sounds compared to environ-
mental sounds. In another study comparing speech and non-
speech perception in the brain, Belin et al. (2000) reported a great-
er activation along the upper bank of the STS when participants lis-
tened to human speech versus non-vocal sounds such as natural
sounds or animal cries. From Fig. 7 we note greater activation in
the left hemisphere compared to the right hemisphere. Apart from

Fig. 7. Statistical activation maps showing regions of significantly greater activation for human speech compared to non-human speech conditions using a threshold of
p = .05.
12120 M.M. Mostafa / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 12114–12122
Fig. 8. Contrast estimates and 90% confidence interval.
Belin et al. (2002) who reported a great activation to human vocal
sounds in the right side of the brain, our finding is remarkably in
line with other research findings despite stimuli differences among
studies such as the use of reversed speech, scrambled speech, syl-
lables, pseudowords, etc. (e.g. Binder et al., 1997; Demonet et al.,
1992; Zatorre, Evans, Meyer, & Gjedde, 1992).
This result is important because it suggests that different types
of sounds are processed in different functional brain pathways.
Similar results were reported by Meyer at al. (2005) when compar-
ing neural response to speech, laughter and environmental sounds.
The authors found that posterior STG and the left superior tempo-
ral region are involved in speech processing while areas in the pari-
etal auditory fields are involved in processing laughter. On the
other hand environmental sounds elicit greater activation in areas
such as the posterior supratem-poral plane. Taken together, it
seems that there are ‘‘voice-selective’’ areas in the brain which
lends strong support to the face perception neurocognitive model.
This model proposes that visual, affective and linguistic informa-
tion are processed in different cortical regions in the brain. This
model argues that the presence of human sounds activates partic-
ular regions in the brain in a way similar to the activation of certain
visual areas by specific stimuli such as color or motion. In fact re-
cent fMRI studies have shown that silent lip-reading activates hu-
man auditory cortex and related auditory cortices in a similar way
to listening to human sounds (e.g. Calvert et al., 1997; Rosenblum,
2008).
In order to check the stability of our results we plotted the fitted
curves of peak activation with errors added in Fig. 10. The tight
matching between errors and the reference Box-Car function indi-
cates high signals’ reliability.
Fig. 9. Grand averaged and spatially normalized SPMs for activated brain regions (human sound > non-human sound).
Fig. 10. Fitted responses for the auditory vs. rest condition.
5. Discussion and future research
The objectives of this research were to investigate brain regions
responsible for processing human and non-human sounds and to
test the existence of the face perception model within an advertis-
ing context. We employed a block design fMRI paradigm to study
cerebral activities associated with the different types of sounds.
In this design participants heard human versus non-human sounds
in different sets of advertisements. Statistical analysis based on
general linear model showed that human sounds elicited greater
activation in several areas in or around the primary auditory
cortex. This result suggests that different types of sounds are
processed in different functional brain pathways, which implies
that such pathways are highly selective to human sounds.
Several neuroimaging studies have recently compared brain
processing of human versus non-human sounds using a wide range
of stimuli (e.g. Belin et al., 2000; Zatorre et al., 1992). However, this
study is novel in that it is, to our knowledge, the first to contrast
different types of sounds within advertising context. Isolating the
sound presented in commercial ads helps explain how consumers’
brain process language in advertising. This is an important under-
taking because it might be difficult to determine what specific
components of the ad account for brain processing of advertising
stimuli. By doing so the study adds depth to the knowledge base
on neural correlates of auditory stimuli in advertising. Di Salle
et al. (2003) have argued that ‘‘the auditory system has progressed
at a considerably slower pace compared to other functional
systems’’ (p. 1213). By using fMRI to study how the brain processes
auditor information, this study adds breadth to the debate over the
brain regions activated by human versus non-human sounds. By
 M.M. Mostafa / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 12114–12122
focusing solely on advertising, rather than on other fields, this
study enriches the knowledge base of this under-represented area.
Although this fMRI study has demonstrated the usefulness of
this method in confirming the distinctiveness of brain regions
responsible for processing human versus non-human sounds, we
did not test whether this result holds in the case of different atten-
tional states. Future research may test whether the activation of
auditory cortical areas varies with attentional state. We did not also
test whether auditory cortex activation holds when presenting par-
ticipants with subliminal stimuli. Future research should demon-
strate or refute this by demonstrating that auditory cortex
activation is independent or just synonymous to conscious speech
perception. Future research using fMRI methods should test
whether the activation in primary and secondary auditory cortex
occurs is bilateral or hemisphere dependent. Since several research-
ers have found that human sounds share some acoustic features
with animal sounds (e.g. Poremba et al., 2004; Rendall, 2003),
future fMRI research should investigate human brain areas acti-
vated by animal sounds versus other environmental sounds. Finally,
since the major goal of neuromarketing is to obtain objective infor-
mation about consumers’ neural correlates (Murphy, Illes, & Reiner,
2008), it is expected that neuromarketing studies will provide qual-
itatively different and superior information compared to traditional
marketing research methods. In fact, initial studies integrating neu-
roscientific methods into marketing have led to valid and reliable
findings for marketing theory and practice. While classic neuromar-
keting studies have attempted to transfer neuroscientific findings
to a marketing-relevant context, future studies might focus on test-
ing a range of theoretically-driven marketing research concepts
such as signaling theory of the brand or surrealist imagery in adver-
tising. Without testing theoretically driven marketing concepts,
there is a chance of falling ‘‘unwittingly prey to exactly the kind
of blobological approach that has received criticism in social and
general neuroscientific circles’’ (Lee & Chamberlain, 2007, p. 23).
References
Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C., O’Connor, E., & Breiter, H. (2001).
Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence.
Neuron, 32, 537–551.
Ambler, T., Ioannides, A., & Rose, S. (2000). Brands on the brain: Neuro-images of
advertising. Business Strategy Review, 11, 17–30.
Astolfi, L., Fallani, F., Cincotti, F., Mattia, D., Bianchi, L., Marciani, M., et al. (2008).
Neural basis for brain responses to TV commercials: A high-resolution EEG
study. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 16,
522–531.
Astolfi, L., Fallani, F., Cincotti, F., Mattia, D., Bianchi, L., Marciani, M., et al. (2009).
Brain activity during the memorization of visual scenes from TV commercials:
An application of high resolution EEG and steady state somatosensory evoked
potentials technology. Journal of Physiology–Paris, 103, 333–341.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. (1997). Deciding advantageously
before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275, 1293–1295.
Belin, P., Zatorre, R., Lafaille, P., Ahad, P., & Pike, B. (2000). Voice-selective areas in
human auditory cortex. Nature, 403, 309–312.
Belin, P., Zatorre, R., & Ahad, P. (2002). Human temporal-lobe response to vocal
sounds. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 17–26.
Benson, R., Whalen, D., Richardson, M., Swainson, B., Clark, V., Lai, C., et al. (2001).
Parametrically dissociating speech and nonspeech perception in the brain using
fMRI. Brain and Language, 78, 364–396.
Bergerbest, D., Ghahremani, D., & Gabrieli, J. (2004). Neural correlates of auditory
reception priming: Reduced fMRI activation in the auditory cortex. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 966–977.
Binder, J., Frost, J., Hammeke, T., Cox, R., Rao, S., & Prieto, T. (1997). Human brain
language areas identified by functional MRI. Journal of Neuroscience, 17,
353–362.
Binder, J., Frost, J., Hammeke, T., Bellgowan, P., Springer, J., Kaufman, J., et al. (2000).
Human temporal lobe activation by speech and nonspeech sounds. Cerebral
Cortex, 10, 512–528.
Butler, M. (2008). Neuromarketing and the perception of knowledge. Journal of
Consumer Behavior, 7, 415–419.
Calvert, G., Bullmore, E., Brammer, M., Campbell, R., Iverson, S., Woodruff, P., et al.
(1997). Silent lipreading activates the auditory cortex. Science, 276, 593–596.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New
York: Putnam.
12121
Damasio, A. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of
the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (Biological
Sciences), 351, 1413–1420.
de Beeck, H. (2010). Against hyperacuity in brain reading: Spatial smoothing does
not hurt multivariate fMRI analyses? Neuroimage, 49, 1943–1948.
Degerman, A., Rinne, T., Salmi, J., Salonen, O., & Alho, K. (2006). Selective attention to
sound location or pitch studied with fMRI. Brain Research, 1077, 123–134.
Dehaene, S., Dupoux, E., Mehler, J., Cohen, L., Paulesu, E., Perani, D., et al. (1997).
Anatomical variability in the cortical representation of first and second
language. Neuroreport, 8, 3809–3815.
Demonet, J., Chollet, F., Ramsay, S., Cardebat, D., Nespoulous, J., Wise, R., et al.
(1992). The anatomy of phonological and semantic processing in normal
subjects. Brain, 115, 1753–1768.
Deppe, M., Schwindt, W., Kramer, J., Kugel, H., Plassmann, H., Kenning, P., et al.
(2005). Bias specific activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex during
credibility judgments. Brain Research Bulletin, 67, 413–421.
Desmond, J., & Glover, G. (2002). Estimating sample size in functional MRI (fMRI)
neuroimaging studies: statistical power analysis. Journal of Neuroscience
Methods, 118, 115–128.
Di Salle, F., Esposito, F., Scarabino, T., Formisano, E., Marciano, E., Salino, C., et al.
(2003). FMRI of the auditory system: Understanding the neural basis of auditory
gestalt. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 21, 1213–1224.
Dommes, E., Bauknecht, H., Scholz, G., Rothemund, Y., Hensel, J., & Klingebiel, R.
(2009). Auditory cortex stimulation by low-frequency tones: An fMRI study.
Brain Research, 1304, 129–137.
Dong, Y., Nakamura, K., Okada, T., Hanakawa, T., Fukuyama, H., Mazziotta, J., et al.
(2005). Neural mechanisms underlying the processing of Chinese words: An
fMRI study. Neuroscience Research, 52, 139–145.
Erk, S., Spitzer, M., Wunderlich, A., Galley, L., & Walter, H. (2002). Cultural objects
modulate reward circuitry. Neuroreport, 13, 2499–2503.
Fallani, F., Astolfi, L., Cincotti, F., Mattia, D., Marciani, M., Gao, S., et al. (2009).
Structure of the cortical networks during successful memory encoding in TV
commercials. Clinical Neurophysiology, 119, 2231–2237.
Fecteau, S., Armony, J., Joanette, Y., & Belin, P. (2004). Is voice processing species-
specific in human auditory cortex? Neuroimage, 23, 840–848.
Friston, K., Frith, G., Frackowiak, R., & Turner, R. (1995). Characterizing dynamic
brain response with fMRI: A multivariate approach. Neuroimage, 2, 166–172.
Fugate, D. (2007). Neuromarketing: A layman’s look at neuroscience and its
potential application to marketing practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24,
385–394.
Huettel, S., Song, A., & McCarthy, G. (2009). Functional magnetic resonance imaging
(2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Ioannides, A., Liu, L., Theofilou, D., Dammers, J., Burne, T., Ambler, T., et al. (2000).
Real time processing of affective and cognitive stimuli in the human brain
extracted from MEG signals. Brain Topography, 13, 11–19.
Jancke, L., Mirzazade, S., & Shah, N. (1999). Attention modulates activity in the
primary and the secondary auditory cortex: A functional magnetic resonance
imaging study in human subjects. Neuroscience Letters, 266, 125–128.
Jenkinson, M., Bannister, P., Brady, M., & Smith, S. (2002). Improved optimization for
the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain
images. Neuroimage, 17, 825–841.
Kenning, P., & Plassmann, H. (2005). Neuroeconomics: An overview from an
economic perspective. Brain Research Bulletin, 67, 343–354.
Kenning, P., Plassmann, H., & Ahlert, D. (2007). Applications of functional magnetic
resonance imaging for market research. Qualitative Market Research, 10,
135–152.
Knutson, B., & Peterson, R. (2005). Neurally reconstructing expected utility. Games
and Economic Behavior, 52, 305–315.
Knutson, B., Fong, G., Bennett, S., & Adams, C. (2003). A region of mesial prefrontal
cortex tracks monetarily rewarding outcomes: Characterization with rapid
event-related fMRI. Neuroimage, 18, 263–272.
Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G., Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Neural
predictors of purchase. Neuron, 53, 147–156.
Lancaster, J., Cykowski, M., McKay, D., Kochunov, P., Fox, P., Rogers, W., et al. (2010).
Anatoical global spatial normalization. Neuroinform, 8, 171–182.
Langleben, D., Loughead, J., Ruparel, K., Hakun, J., Bush-Winkor, S., Holloway, M.,
et al. (2009). Reduced prefrontal and temporal processing and recall of high
‘‘sensation value’’ ads. Neuroimage, 46, 219–225.
Lattner, S., Meyer, M., & Friederici, A. (2005). Voice perception: Sex, pitch, and the
right hemisphere. Human Brain Mapping, 24, 11–20.
Lee, A., & Rudebeck, S. (2010). Investigating the interaction between spatial
perception and working memory in the human medical temporal lobe. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2823–2835.
Lee, N., & Chamberlain, A. (2007). Neuroimaging and psychophysiological
measurement in organizational research: An agenda for organizational
cognitive neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1118, 18–43.
Lee, N., Broderick, A., & Chamberlain, L. (2007). What is ‘‘neuromarketing’’? A
discussion and agenda for future research. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 63, 199–204.
Litong-Palima, J., Violanda, R., & Saloma, C. (2004). Voice tracking and spoken word
recognition in the presence of other voices. Physica D, 199, 400–406.
Mast, F., & Zaltman, G. (2005). A behavioral window on the mind of the market: An
application of the response time paradigm. Brain Research bulletin, 67, 422–427.
Mazoyer, B., Tzourio, N., Syrota, A., Murayama, M., Levrier, O., Salamon, G., et al.
(1993). The cortical representation of speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
5, 467–479.
12122 M.M. Mostafa / Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 12114–12122
McClure, S., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K., Montague, L., & Montague, P. (2004). Neural
correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44,
379–387.
Meyer, M., Zysset, S., von Cramon, D., & Alter, K. (2005). Distinct fMRI response to
laughter, speech, and sounds along the human per-sylvian cortex. Cognitive
Brain Research, 24, 291–306.
Morris, J., Klahr, N., Shen, F., Villegas, J., Wright, P., He, G., et al. (2009). Mapping a
multidimensional emotion in response to television commercials. Human Brain
Mapping, 30, 789–796.
Murphy, E., Illes, J., & Reiner, P. (2008). Neuroethics of neuromarketing. Journal of
Consumer Behavior, 7, 293–302.
Murphy, K., & Garavan, H. (2004). An empirical investigation into the number of
subjects required for an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage, 22, 879–885.
Ohme, R., Reykowska, D., Wiener, D., & Choromanska, A. (2009). Analysis of
neurophysiological reactions to advertising stimuli by means of EEG and
galvanic skin response measures. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and
Economics, 2, 21–31.
Oldfield, R. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh
inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
Petkov, C., Kang, X., Alho, K., Bertrand, O., Yund, E., & Woods, D. (2004). Attentional
modulation of human auditory cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 658–663.
Paulus, P., & Frank, L. (2003). Ventromedial prefrontal cortex activation is crucial for
preference judgments. Neuroreport, 10, 1311–1315.
Plassmann, H., Ambler, T., Braeutigam, S., & Kenning, P. (2007). What can
advertisers learn from neuroscience? International Journal of Advertising, 26,
151–175.
Plassmann, H., O’Doherty, J., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions can
modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. PNAS, 105(3),
1050–1054.
Poremba, A., Malloy, M., Saunders, R., Carson, R., Herscovitch, P., & Mishkin, M.
(2004). Species-specific calls evoke asymmetric activity in the monkey’s
temporal poles. Nature, 427, 448–451.
Purhonen, L., Kilpelainen-Lees, M., Valkonen-Korhonen, K., Karhu & Lehtonen, K.
(2004). Cerebral processing of mother’s voice compared to unfamiliar voice in
4-month-old infants. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 52, 257–266.
Rendall, D. (2003). Acoustic correlates of caller identity and affect intensity in the
vowel-like grunt vocalizations of baboons. Journal of the Acoustic Society of
America, 113, 3390–3402.
Rosa, J., Lassonde, P., Pinard, P., Keenan, L., & Belin, P. (2008). Investigation of
hemispheric specialization in self-voice recognition. Brain and Language, 68,
204–214.
Rosenblum, L. (2008). Speech perception as a multimodal phenomenon. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 405–409.
Rossiter, J., Silberstein, R., Harris, P., & Nield, G. (2001). Brain-imaging detection of
visual scene encoding in long-term memory for TV commercials. Journal of
Advertising Research, 41, 13–21.
Sanfy, A., Rilling, J., Aronson, J., Nystrom, L., & Cohen, J. (2003). The neural basis of
economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755–1758.
Schaefer, M., & Rotte, M. (2007a). Thinking on luxury or pragmatic brand products:
Brain response to different categories of culturally based brands. Brain Research,
1165, 98–104.
Schaefer, M., & Rotte, M. (2007b). Favorite brands as cultural objects modulate
reward circuit. Neuroreport, 18, 141–145.
Schaefer, M., & Rotte, M. (2010). Combining a semantic differential with fMRI to
investigate brands as cultural symbols. Social, Cognitive, and Affective
Neuroscience, 5(2-3), 274–281.
Schaefer, M., Berens, H., Heinze, H.-J., & Rotte, M. (2006). Neural correlates of
culturally familiar brands of car manufacturers. Neuroimage, 31, 861–865.
Senior, C., Smyth, H., Cooke, R., Shaw, R., & Peel, E. (2007). Mapping the mind for the
modern market researcher. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
10, 153–167.
Shimizu, Y., Umeda, M., Mano, H., Aoki, I., Higuchi, T., & Tanaka, C. (2007). Neural
response to Shepard’s tones: An auditory fMRI study using multifractal analysis.
Brain Research, 1186, 113–123.
Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and
influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322.
Stallen, M., Smidts, A., Rijpkema, M., Smit, G., & Klucharev, V. (2010). Celebrities and
shoes on the femal brain: The neural correlates of product evaluation in the
context of fame. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 802–811.
Stoll, M., Baecke, S., & Kenning, P. (2008). What they see is what they get? An fMRI
study on neural correlates of attractive packaging. Journal of Consumer Behavior,
7, 342–359.
Talairach, P., & Tourneau, J. (1988). Coplanar stereotaxi atlas of the human brain: 3-
Dimensional proportional system thieme medical publishers. New York.
Treleaven-Hassard, S., Gold, J., Bellman, S., Schweda, A., Ciorciari, J., Critchey, C.,
et al. (2010). Using the P3a to guage automatic attention to interactive
television advertising. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 777–784.
Vance, K., & Virtue, S. (2011). Metaphoric advertisement comprehension: The role of
the cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, 41–50.
Yoon, C., Gutchess, A., Feinberg, F., & Polk, T. (2006). A functional magnetic
resonance imaging study of neural dissociation between brand and person
judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 31–40.
Zatorre, R., Evans, A., Meyer, E., & Gjedde, A. (1992). Lateralization of phonetic and
pitch discrimination in speech processing. Science, 256, 846–849.