Auditory Processing Of Tonal And Semantic Stimuli: A Comparative Study Of Cultural And Contextual Influence

Authors

  • Dr Shahzad Aasim Author
  • Dr Muheet Butt Author
  • Dr Sanjeev Rana Author
  • Dr Rakesh Banal Author
  • Dr Hilal Wani Author
  • Dr Suhail Ahmad Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64252/t5r7ss82

Keywords:

Auditory stimuli, tonal characteristics, religious content, non-religious stimuli, emotional engagement, cognitive recall, neural activation, amygdala, prefrontal cortex, music therapy.

Abstract

Denoting a highly interactive dynamic of characteristics of pitch, with an emphasis on the content that has undergone semantic processing, this research makes a comparison between different responses made to religious (e.g., hymns, chants, sacred texts) and non-religious (e.g., emotionally neutral music and emotionally-charged speech) auditory stimuli. By utilizing both multimodal measurement methods (which include such things as neuroimaging, electroencephalography (EEG)) and statistical learning methods, the research explores how cultural and contextual edification modulate neurological responses as well as psychological responses. The conclusion is that religious stimuli are much more emotionally engaging than non-religious ones, and their cognitive recall and neural activation are accordingly heightened.(in particular, within the amygdala and prefrontal cortex). These results vividly demonstrate how meaningful aurally religious experiences can be to the human brain as well as its behavior. The knowledge gained has major implications for fields such as music therapy and education and public communication. This research was conducted at the Kashmir Advanced Scientific Research Centre (KASRC), Cluster University, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-08-04

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Auditory Processing Of Tonal And Semantic Stimuli: A Comparative Study Of Cultural And Contextual Influence. (2025). International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 1261-1271. https://doi.org/10.64252/t5r7ss82