Literature DB >> 23716245

Detection thresholds for amplitude modulations of tones in budgerigar, rabbit, and human.

Laurel H Carney1, Angela D Ketterer, Kristina S Abrams, Douglas M Schwarz, Fabio Idrobo.   

Abstract

Envelope fluctuations of complex sounds carry information that is -essential for many types of discrimination and for detection in noise. To study the neural representation of envelope information and mechanisms for processing of this temporal aspect of sounds, it is useful to identify an animal model that can -sensitively detect amplitude modulations (AM). Low modulation frequencies, which dominate speech sounds, are of particular interest. Yet, most animal -models studied previously are relatively insensitive to AM at low modulation -frequencies. Rabbits have high thresholds for low-frequency modulations, -especially for tone carriers. Rhesus macaques are less sensitive than humans to low-frequency -modulations of wideband noise (O'Conner et al. Hear Res 277, 37-43, 2011). Rats and -chinchilla also have higher thresholds than humans for amplitude -modulations of noise (Kelly et al. J Comp Psychol 120, 98-105, 2006; Henderson et al. J Acoust Soc Am 75, -1177-1183, 1984). In contrast, the budgerigar has thresholds for AM detection of wideband noise similar to those of human listeners at low -modulation frequencies (Dooling and Searcy. Percept Psychophys 46, 65-71, 1981). A -one-interval, two-alternative operant conditioning procedure was used to estimate AM -detection thresholds for 4-kHz tone carriers at low modulation -frequencies (4-256 Hz). Budgerigar thresholds are comparable to those of human subjects in a comparable task. Implications of these comparative results for temporal coding of complex sounds are discussed. Comparative results for masked AM detection are also presented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23716245      PMCID: PMC4610919          DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-1590-9_43

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol        ISSN: 0065-2598            Impact factor:   2.622


  14 in total

1.  Characterizing frequency selectivity for envelope fluctuations.

Authors:  S D Ewert; T Dau
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Spectro-temporal processing in the envelope-frequency domain.

Authors:  Stephan D Ewert; Jesko L Verhey; Torsten Dau
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Maximum decoding abilities of temporal patterns and synchronized firings: application to auditory neurons responding to click trains and amplitude modulated white noise.

Authors:  Boris Gourévitch; Jos J Eggermont
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2009-04-17       Impact factor: 1.621

4.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in the barn owl (Tyto alba).

Authors:  Michael L Dent; Georg M Klump; Christian Schwenzfeier
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.836

5.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

Authors:  H Levitt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Detection and discrimination of amplitude-modulated signals by macaque monkeys.

Authors:  D B Moody
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds.

Authors:  N F Viemeister
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris): I. Psychophysical modulation detection thresholds.

Authors:  G M Klump; K Okanoya
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Amplitude modulation thresholds in chinchillas with high-frequency hearing loss.

Authors:  D Henderson; R Salvi; G Pavek; R Hamernik
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1984-04       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Speech perception by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus): the voiced-voiceless distinction.

Authors:  R J Dooling; K Okanoya; S D Brown
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1989-07
View more
  11 in total

1.  A Decline in Response Variability Improves Neural Signal Detection during Auditory Task Performance.

Authors:  Gardiner von Trapp; Bradley N Buran; Kamal Sen; Malcolm N Semple; Dan H Sanes
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Midbrain Synchrony to Envelope Structure Supports Behavioral Sensitivity to Single-Formant Vowel-Like Sounds in Noise.

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry; Kristina S Abrams; Johanna Forst; Matthew J Mender; Erikson G Neilans; Fabio Idrobo; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-10-20

Review 3.  Animal models of hidden hearing loss: Does auditory-nerve-fiber loss cause real-world listening difficulties?

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry
Journal:  Mol Cell Neurosci       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 4.314

4.  Effects of selective auditory-nerve damage on the behavioral audiogram and temporal integration in the budgerigar.

Authors:  Stephanie J Wong; Kristina S Abrams; Kassidy N Amburgey; Yingxuan Wang; Kenneth S Henry
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Normal Tone-In-Noise Sensitivity in Trained Budgerigars despite Substantial Auditory-Nerve Injury: No Evidence of Hidden Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry; Kristina S Abrams
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Identifying cues for tone-in-noise detection using decision variable correlation in the budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry; Kassidy N Amburgey; Kristina S Abrams; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Neural correlates of behavioral amplitude modulation sensitivity in the budgerigar midbrain.

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry; Erikson G Neilans; Kristina S Abrams; Fabio Idrobo; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Persistent Auditory Nerve Damage Following Kainic Acid Excitotoxicity in the Budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry; Kristina S Abrams
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-09

9.  Effects of Kainic Acid-Induced Auditory Nerve Damage on Envelope-Following Responses in the Budgerigar (Melopsittacus undulatus).

Authors:  John L Wilson; Kristina S Abrams; Kenneth S Henry
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-10-19

10.  Midbrain-Level Neural Correlates of Behavioral Tone-in-Noise Detection: Dependence on Energy and Envelope Cues.

Authors:  Yingxuan Wang; Kristina S Abrams; Laurel H Carney; Kenneth S Henry
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.