Literature DB >> 22948475

Auditory nerve frequency tuning measured with forward-masked compound action potentials.

Eric Verschooten1, Luis Robles, Damir Kovačić, Philip X Joris.   

Abstract

Frequency selectivity is a fundamental cochlear property. Recent studies using otoacoustic emissions and psychophysical forward masking suggest that frequency selectivity is sharper in human than in common laboratory species. This has been disputed based on reports using compound action potentials (CAPs), which reflect activity in the auditory nerve and can be measured in humans. Comparative data of CAPs, obtained with a variety of simultaneous masking protocols, have been interpreted to indicate similarity of frequency tuning across mammals and even birds. Unfortunately, there are several issues with the available CAP measurements which hamper a straightforward comparison across species. We investigate sharpness of CAP tuning in cat and chinchilla using a forward masking notched-noise paradigm--which is less confounded by cochlear nonlinearities than simultaneous masking paradigms and similar to what was used in the psychophysical study reporting sharper tuning in humans. Our parametric study, using different probe frequencies and notch widths, shows relationships consistent with those of auditory nerve fibers (ANFs). The sharpness of tuning, quantified by Q(10) factors, is negatively correlated with probe level and increases with probe frequency, but the Q(10) values are generally lower than the average trend for ANFs. Like the single fiber data, tuning for CAPs is sharper in cat than in chinchilla, but the two species are similar in the dependence of tuning on probe frequency and in the relationship between tuning in ANFs and CAP. Growth-of-maskability functions show slopes <1 indicating that with increasing probe level the probe is more susceptible to cochlear compression than the masker. The results support the use of forward-masked CAPs as an alternative measure to estimate ANF tuning and to compare frequency tuning across species.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22948475      PMCID: PMC3505591          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-012-0346-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  35 in total

1.  Estimates of human cochlear tuning at low levels using forward and simultaneous masking.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-07-10

2.  Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli.

Authors:  R D Patterson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Compound action potential (AP) tuning curves.

Authors:  P Dallos; M A Cheatham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Psychophysical tuning curves of chinchillas.

Authors:  T McGee; A Ryan; P Dallos
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Compound actionpotential tuning curves in normal and pathological human ears.

Authors:  J J Eggermont
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1977-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Frequency selectivity in Old-World monkeys corroborates sharp cochlear tuning in humans.

Authors:  Philip X Joris; Christopher Bergevin; Radha Kalluri; Myles Mc Laughlin; Pascal Michelet; Marcel van der Heijden; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-10-10       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  The frequency response and other properties of single fibres in the guinea-pig cochlear nerve.

Authors:  E F Evans
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1972-10       Impact factor: 5.182

8.  A new procedure for measuring peripheral compression in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.

Authors:  D A Nelson; A C Schroder; M Wojtczak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Auditory-nerve response from cats raised in a low-noise chamber.

Authors:  M C Liberman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1978-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Stimulus-frequency-emission group delay: a test of coherent reflection filtering and a window on cochlear tuning.

Authors:  Christopher A Shera; John J Guinan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  9 in total

1.  Transformation of spatial sensitivity along the ascending auditory pathway.

Authors:  Justin D Yao; Peter Bremen; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Estimating cochlear frequency selectivity with stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions in chinchillas.

Authors:  Karolina K Charaziak; Jonathan H Siegel
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-09-18

3.  Aging alters envelope representations of speech-like sounds in the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Aravindakshan Parthasarathy; Björn Herrmann; Edward L Bartlett
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 4.673

4.  Estimation of neural phase locking from stimulus-evoked potentials.

Authors:  Eric Verschooten; Philip X Joris
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-03

5.  Assessment of Ipsilateral Efferent Effects in Human via ECochG.

Authors:  Eric Verschooten; Elizabeth A Strickland; Nicolas Verhaert; Philip X Joris
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 4.677

Review 6.  Electrophysiological Measurements of Peripheral Vestibular Function-A Review of Electrovestibulography.

Authors:  Daniel J Brown; Christopher J Pastras; Ian S Curthoys
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2017-05-31

7.  High-resolution frequency tuning but not temporal coding in the human cochlea.

Authors:  Eric Verschooten; Christian Desloovere; Philip X Joris
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 8.029

8.  The Auditory Nerve Overlapped Waveform (ANOW) Detects Small Endolymphatic Manipulations That May Go Undetected by Conventional Measurements.

Authors:  Jeffery T Lichtenhan; Choongheon Lee; Farah Dubaybo; Kaitlyn A Wenrich; Uzma S Wilson
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Fine-grained statistical structure of speech.

Authors:  François Deloche
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.