2A) and the omission (Fig. 2B) in the random sequence. This subject showed a peak response around 150 ms after the tone/omission onset in the left selleck products hemisphere, whereas the peak in the right hemisphere was less clear. Figure 3 depicts the reconstructed source activity by the MEG response to omissions from 100 to 200 ms (one-sample t-tests, uncorrected P < 0.005). For the random omission, we observed the activity around the bilateral auditory cortex and posterior to it, irrespective of musical experience. The within- and between-group omissions elicited

the activity in similar brain areas, although it was not as large as for the random omission. Following this analysis, we computed t-contrasts between the omission in the random sequence and the group sequence as a whole-brain analysis of the effect of regularity in a tone sequence (Fig. 4, uncorrected P < 0.001). The differences observed in musicians were located in the parieto-temporal areas, including the right insula, inferior parietal lobe (IPL) and bilateral supramarginal gyrus, whereas the difference in non-musicians was located at the insula and left superior temporal gyrus (STG). The peak coordinates

of this analysis are listed in Table 1. The ROI analysis in the right IPL showed that the omission in the random sequence resulted Selleck Z-VAD-FMK in greater activity in musicians than the omissions in the group sequence for the whole time period (Fig. 5A, left). In non-musicians, however, the right IPL activity caused by the omissions was not significantly different to each other (Fig. 5A, right). By contrast, ROI analysis in the left STG showed that the omission in the random sequence led to greater activity in non-musicians between 100 and 200 ms compared with the other omissions, whereas musicians did not show such a difference (Fig. 5B). The mean amplitude of the

ROI activity between 100 and 200 ms was analysed using a two-way anova with the factors musical experience (musicians or non-musicians) and omission (random, within-group, or between-group). This analysis showed a main effect of omission (F2,38 = 12.37, P < 0.001) and an interaction between musical DCLK1 experience and omission (F2,38 = 7.37, P = 0.002) in the right IPL. A post-hoc analysis showed a significant effect of musical experience when the omission was in a random sequence (Fig. 5C; F1,19 = 5.57, P = 0.029). In contrast, the left STG showed a main effect of omission (F2,38 = 4.32, P = 0.020) and an interaction between musical experience and omission (F2,38 = 4.31, P = 0.020) when analysed using a two-way anova. However, post-hoc analysis did not show any significant difference. In order to investigate an interaction between musical experience and omission at the whole-brain level, we conducted a two-way anova with the factors musical experience and omission. This analysis showed an interaction between musical experience and omission in the right supramarginal gyrus/IPL only [MNI coordinates, (58, −44, 18); F-value, 6.