Literature DB >> 26807797

Comparison of mouse minimum audible angle determined in prepulse inhibition and operant conditioning procedures.

Derik Behrens1, Georg M Klump2.   

Abstract

Both reward based operant conditioning (OC) and reflex-based prepulse inhibition (PPI) procedures are used in sound localisation studies in mice. Since the results of both procedures are compared in the literature, it is important to assess whether they provide similar results if the same stimulus paradigm is applied. Here, we compare the sensitivity of C57BL/6 mice in OC and PPI procedures for detecting a switch in speaker location using broadband and narrowband noise stimuli and determined their minimum audible angle (MAA). In the OC procedure, we calculated d' values from the hit and false alarm rates. In the PPI procedure, we calculated the area under ROC curves from the startle response amplitudes and derived da values to obtain a sensitivity measure that corresponds to d'. For both procedures, the mean sensitivity to the speaker switch increased with an increase in angular separation. For broadband noise stimuli, a d' of up to 3.3 (OC) and a da of up to 1.1 (PPI) were observed at large speaker separations. Narrowband noise stimuli resulted in lower sensitivities in both procedures, resulting in a maximum d' of 2.0 (OC) and a maximum da of 0.3 (PPI). Using a sensitivity of 1.0 as the threshold criterion, broadband noise MAAs in the range from 32° to 46° were observed in the OC procedure whereas a broadband noise MAAs of 108° or higher were observed in the PPI procedure. In the OC procedure, narrowband noise MAAs in the range from 37° to 62° were observed. In the PPI procedure, no narrowband noise MAA could be determined since none of the subjects reached the threshold. Thus, OC procedures result in a better performance of the subjects in the sound localization task than PPI procedures, challenging the view that both procedures can be used interchangeably.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MAA; Psychophysics; Receiver operating characteristics; Sensitivity; Signal detection theory; Sound localization

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26807797     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.01.011

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  Acoustic startle modification as a tool for evaluating auditory function of the mouse: Progress, pitfalls, and potential.

Authors:  Amanda M Lauer; Derik Behrens; Georg Klump
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2017-03-19       Impact factor: 8.989

Review 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Spectral cues are necessary to encode azimuthal auditory space in the mouse superior colliculus.

Authors:  Shinya Ito; Yufei Si; David A Feldheim; Alan M Litke
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 14.919

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.