Literature DB >> 10418154

Noise improves transfer of near-threshold, phase-locked activity of the cochlear nerve: evidence for stochastic resonance?

K R Henry1.   

Abstract

Stochastic resonance can be described as improved detection of weak periodic stimuli by a dynamic nonlinear system, resulting from the simultaneous presentation of a restricted dynamic range of low-intensity noise. This property has been reported in simple physical and biological activities. The present study describes data consistent with the interpretation that stochastic resonance can be observed in the response of cochlear neurons. These experiments utilized low levels (-5 to 25 dB SPL) of stimuli and noise (5 to 30 dB SPL). Stimuli consisted of simultaneously presented 8 kHz (F1) and 8.8 kHz (F2) tone bursts, which generated an 800 Hz F2-F1 cochlear nerve envelope ensemble response in the gerbil. The mean response threshold was approximately -3 dB SPL. Simultaneous presentation of a low-intensity wideband noise increased the amplitude of this response. This was observed with tonal stimuli having intensities of 0-5 dB SPL; responses to stimulus levels > 10 dB were attenuated by noise. Response amplitude was increased by noise levels of 10-15 dB; the amplitude was unaffected by lower levels of noise, and decreased in the presence of higher noise levels. These properties are compatible with those of stochastic resonance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10418154     DOI: 10.1007/s003590050357

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Physiol A            Impact factor:   1.836


  10 in total

1.  Mechanical noise enhances signal transmission in the bullfrog sacculus.

Authors:  Andrew A Indresano; Jonathan E Frank; Pameia Middleton; Fernán Jaramillo
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-09

2.  Dynamic encoding of amplitude-modulated sounds at the level of auditory nerve fibers.

Authors:  L K Rimskaya-Korsakova; V N Telepnev; N A Dubrovksii
Journal:  Neurosci Behav Physiol       Date:  2005-01

3.  Dynamic spectrotemporal feature selectivity in the auditory midbrain.

Authors:  Nicholas A Lesica; Benedikt Grothe
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-05-21       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  When signal meets noise: immunity of the frog ear to interference.

Authors:  Mario Penna; Juan Pablo Gormaz; Peter M Narins
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  2009-04-30

5.  Response properties of auditory activated cells in the occipital cortex of the blind mole rat: an electrophysiological study.

Authors:  R S Sadka; Z Wollberg
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2004-03-17       Impact factor: 1.836

6.  Background noise can enhance cortical auditory evoked potentials under certain conditions.

Authors:  Melissa A Papesh; Curtis J Billings; Lucas S Baltzell
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 3.708

Review 7.  Enhanced brainstem phase-locking in low-level noise reveals stochastic resonance in the frequency-following response (FFR).

Authors:  Bhanu Shukla; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 3.252

8.  Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation (tRNS) Shapes the Processing of Rapidly Changing Auditory Information.

Authors:  Katharina S Rufener; Philipp Ruhnau; Hans-Jochen Heinze; Tino Zaehle
Journal:  Front Cell Neurosci       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 5.505

9.  Maintaining acoustic communication at a cocktail party: heterospecific masking noise improves signal detection through frequency separation.

Authors:  M E Siegert; H Römer; M Hartbauer
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2013-12-15       Impact factor: 3.312

10.  The heterospecific calling song can improve conspecific signal detection in a bushcricket species.

Authors:  Zainab A S Abdelatti; Manfred Hartbauer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 3.208

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.