Literature DB >> 21945200

Inferior colliculus contributions to phase encoding of stop consonants in an animal model.

Catherine M Warrier1, Daniel A Abrams, Trent G Nicol, Nina Kraus.   

Abstract

The human auditory brainstem is known to be exquisitely sensitive to fine-grained spectro-temporal differences between speech sound contrasts, and the ability of the brainstem to discriminate between these contrasts is important for speech perception. Recent work has described a novel method for translating brainstem timing differences in response to speech contrasts into frequency-specific phase differentials. Results from this method have shown that the human brainstem response is surprisingly sensitive to phase differences inherent to the stimuli across a wide extent of the spectrum. Here we use an animal model of the auditory brainstem to examine whether the stimulus-specific phase signatures measured in human brainstem responses represent an epiphenomenon associated with far-field (i.e., scalp-recorded) measurement of neural activity, or alternatively whether these specific activity patterns are also evident in auditory nuclei that contribute to the scalp-recorded response, thereby representing a more fundamental temporal processing phenomenon. Responses in anaesthetized guinea pigs to three minimally-contrasting consonant-vowel stimuli were collected simultaneously from the cortical surface vertex and directly from central nucleus of the inferior colliculus (ICc), measuring volume conducted neural activity and multiunit, near-field activity, respectively. Guinea pig surface responses were similar to human scalp-recorded responses to identical stimuli in gross morphology as well as phase characteristics. Moreover, surface-recorded potentials shared many phase characteristics with near-field ICc activity. Response phase differences were prominent during formant transition periods, reflecting spectro-temporal differences between syllables, and showed more subtle differences during the identical steady state periods. ICc encoded stimulus distinctions over a broader frequency range, with differences apparent in the highest frequency ranges analyzed, up to 3000 Hz. Based on the similarity of phase encoding across sites, and the consistency and sensitivity of response phase measured within ICc, results suggest that a general property of the auditory system is a high degree of sensitivity to fine-grained phase information inherent to complex acoustical stimuli. Furthermore, results suggest that temporal encoding in ICc contributes to temporal features measured in speech-evoked scalp-recorded responses.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21945200      PMCID: PMC3235178          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2011.09.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  34 in total

1.  Human auditory steady-state responses to amplitude-modulated tones: phase and latency measurements.

Authors:  M S John; T W Picton
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Deficits in auditory brainstem pathway encoding of speech sounds in children with learning problems.

Authors:  Cynthia King; Catherine M Warrier; Erin Hayes; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2002-02-15       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  The importance of cochlear processing for the formation of auditory brainstem and frequency following responses.

Authors:  Torsten Dau
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Cross-phaseogram: objective neural index of speech sound differentiation.

Authors:  Erika Skoe; Trent Nicol; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 2.390

5.  Effects of noise and cue enhancement on neural responses to speech in auditory midbrain, thalamus and cortex.

Authors:  Jenna Cunningham; Trent Nicol; Cynthia King; Steven G Zecker; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Reticular formation influences on primary and non-primary auditory pathways as reflected by the middle latency response.

Authors:  N Kraus; T McGee; T Littman; T Nicol
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1992-08-07       Impact factor: 3.252

7.  Acoustic elements of speechlike stimuli are reflected in surface recorded responses over the guinea pig temporal lobe.

Authors:  T McGee; N Kraus; C King; T Nicol; T D Carrell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Response properties of neurons in the central nucleus and external and dorsal cortices of the inferior colliculus in guinea pig.

Authors:  J Syka; J Popelár; E Kvasnák; J Astl
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Nonprimary auditory thalamic representation of acoustic change.

Authors:  N Kraus; T McGee; T Littman; T Nicol; C King
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Human frequency-following responses: representation of steady-state synthetic vowels.

Authors:  Ananthanarayan Krishnan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  10 in total

1.  Musicians have fine-tuned neural distinction of speech syllables.

Authors:  A Parbery-Clark; A Tierney; D L Strait; N Kraus
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 3.590

2.  The ability to move to a beat is linked to the consistency of neural responses to sound.

Authors:  Adam Tierney; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 3.  Biological impact of auditory expertise across the life span: musicians as a model of auditory learning.

Authors:  Dana L Strait; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 4.  Unraveling the Biology of Auditory Learning: A Cognitive-Sensorimotor-Reward Framework.

Authors:  Nina Kraus; Travis White-Schwoch
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  Analyzing the FFR: A tutorial for decoding the richness of auditory function.

Authors:  Jennifer Krizman; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Two-channel recording of auditory-evoked potentials to detect age-related deficits in temporal processing.

Authors:  Aravindakshan Parthasarathy; Edward Bartlett
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-04-28       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Auditory-motor entrainment and phonological skills: precise auditory timing hypothesis (PATH).

Authors:  Adam Tierney; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 8.  Evolving perspectives on the sources of the frequency-following response.

Authors:  Emily B J Coffey; Trent Nicol; Travis White-Schwoch; Bharath Chandrasekaran; Jennifer Krizman; Erika Skoe; Robert J Zatorre; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Intertrial auditory neural stability supports beat synchronization in preschoolers.

Authors:  Kali Woodruff Carr; Adam Tierney; Travis White-Schwoch; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Dev Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2015-12-12       Impact factor: 6.464

10.  A Cochlear Implant Performance Prognostic Test Based on Electrical Field Interactions Evaluated by eABR (Electrical Auditory Brainstem Responses).

Authors:  Nicolas Guevara; Michel Hoen; Eric Truy; Stéphane Gallego
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.