Literature DB >> 22874644

A new auditory threshold estimation technique for low frequencies: proof of concept.

Jeffery T Lichtenhan1, Nigel P Cooper, John J Guinan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Presently available nonbehavioral methods to estimate auditory thresholds perform less well at frequencies below 1 kHz than at 1 kHz and above. For many uses, such as providing accurate infant hearing aid amplification for low-frequency vowels, an accurate nonbehavioral method to estimate low-frequency thresholds is needed. A novel technique was developed to estimate low-frequency cochlear thresholds based on the use of a previously reported waveform. It was determined how well the method worked by comparing the resulting thresholds to thresholds from onset-response compound action potentials (CAPs) and single-auditory-nerve (AN)- fibers in cats. A long-term goal is to translate this technique for use in humans.
DESIGN: An electrode near the cochlea records a combination of cochlear microphonic (CM) and neural responses. In response to low-frequency, near threshold-level tones, the CM is almost sinusoidal whereas the neural responses occur preferentially at one phase of the tone. If the tone is presented again but with its polarity reversed, the neural response keeps the same shape, but shifts ½ cycle in time. Averaging responses to tones presented separately at opposite polarities overlaps and interleaves the neural responses and yields a waveform in which the CM is canceled and the neural response appears twice each tone cycle, that is, the resulting neural response is mostly at twice the tone frequency. The resultant waveform is referred to as "the auditory nerve overlapped waveform" (ANOW). In this study, ANOW level functions were measured in anesthetized cats from 10 to 80 dB SPL in 10 dB steps using tones between 0.3 and 1 kHz. As a response metric, the magnitude of the ANOW component was calculated at twice the tone frequency (ANOW2f). The ANOW threshold was the sound level where the interpolated ANOW2f crossed a statistical criterion that was higher than 95% of the noise floor distribution. ANOW thresholds were compared with onset-CAP thresholds from the same recordings and single-AN-fiber thresholds from the same animals.
RESULTS: ANOW and onset-CAP level functions were obtained for 0.3 to 1 kHz tones, and single-AN-fiber responses from cats. Except at 1 kHz, typical ANOW thresholds were mostly 10 to 20 dB more sensitive than onset-CAP thresholds and 10 to 20 dB less sensitive than the most sensitive single-AN-fiber thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: ANOW provides frequency-specific estimates of cochlear neural thresholds over a frequency range that is important for hearing but is not well accessed by nonbehavioral, objective methods. Results suggest that with further targeted development, the ANOW low-frequency threshold estimation technique can be useful both clinically in humans and in basic-science animal experiments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22874644      PMCID: PMC3495092          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31825f9bd3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  36 in total

1.  Influence of calibration method on distortion-product otoacoustic emission measurements: II. threshold prediction.

Authors:  Abigail R Rogers; Sienna R Burke; Judy G Kopun; Hongyang Tan; Stephen T Neely; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Production of cochlear potentials by inner and outer hair cells.

Authors:  P Dallos; M A Cheatham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Action potentials and summating potentials in the normal human cochlea.

Authors:  J J Eggermont; D W Odenthal
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl       Date:  1974

4.  Basic principles for electrocochleography.

Authors:  J J Eggermont
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl       Date:  1974

5.  Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. III. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves.

Authors:  M C Liberman; L W Dodds
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  The auditory neurophonic: basic properties.

Authors:  R L Snyder; C E Schreiner
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Cochlear action potential threshold and single unit thresholds.

Authors:  J R Johnstone; V A Alder; B M Johnstone; D Robertson; G K Yates
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1979-01       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  The relationship between spike rate and synchrony in responses of auditory-nerve fibers to single tones.

Authors:  D H Johnson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1980-10       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing.

Authors:  M P Moeller
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 7.124

10.  Single-unit response at the round window of the guinea pig.

Authors:  V F Prijs
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  39 in total

1.  An analysis of cochlear response harmonics: Contribution of neural excitation.

Authors:  M E Chertoff; A M Kamerer; M Peppi; J T Lichtenhan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Using Neural Response Telemetry to Monitor Physiological Responses to Acoustic Stimulation in Hybrid Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Viral D Tejani; Rachel A Scheperle; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Patterns Seen During Electrode Insertion Using Intracochlear Electrocochleography Obtained Directly Through a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Michael S Harris; William J Riggs; Christopher K Giardina; Brendan P O'Connell; Jourdan T Holder; Robert T Dwyer; Kanthaiah Koka; Robert F Labadie; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Spectral Ripples in Round-Window Cochlear Microphonics: Evidence for Multiple Generation Mechanisms.

Authors:  Karolina K Charaziak; Jonathan H Siegel; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-07-16

5.  Analysis of the cochlear microphonic to a low-frequency tone embedded in filtered noise.

Authors:  Mark E Chertoff; Brian R Earl; Francisco J Diaz; Janna L Sorensen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Predicting the location of missing outer hair cells using the electrical signal recorded at the round window.

Authors:  Mark E Chertoff; Brian R Earl; Francisco J Diaz; Janna L Sorensen; Megan L A Thomas; Aryn M Kamerer; Marcello Peppi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  The Spatial Origins of Cochlear Amplification Assessed by Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions.

Authors:  Shawn S Goodman; Choongheon Lee; John J Guinan; Jeffery T Lichtenhan
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 4.033

8.  Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Delays and Generating Mechanisms in Guinea Pigs, Chinchillas, and Simulations.

Authors:  Maria A Berezina-Greene; John J Guinan
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-15

9.  Early Detection of Endolymphatic Hydrops using the Auditory Nerve Overlapped Waveform (ANOW).

Authors:  C Lee; C V Valenzuela; S S Goodman; D Kallogjeri; C A Buchman; J T Lichtenhan
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 3.590

10.  Drug delivery into the cochlear apex: Improved control to sequentially affect finely spaced regions along the entire length of the cochlear spiral.

Authors:  J T Lichtenhan; J Hartsock; J R Dornhoffer; K M Donovan; A N Salt
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 2.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.