Literature DB >> 29604459

Subcortical sources dominate the neuroelectric auditory frequency-following response to speech.

Gavin M Bidelman1.   

Abstract

Frequency-following responses (FFRs) are neurophonic potentials that provide a window into the encoding of complex sounds (e.g., speech/music), auditory disorders, and neuroplasticity. While the neural origins of the FFR remain debated, renewed controversy has reemerged after demonstration that FFRs recorded via magnetoencephalography (MEG) are dominated by cortical rather than brainstem structures as previously assumed. Here, we recorded high-density (64 ch) FFRs via EEG and applied state-of-the art source imaging techniques to multichannel data (discrete dipole modeling, distributed imaging, independent component analysis, computational simulations). Our data confirm a mixture of generators localized to bilateral auditory nerve (AN), brainstem inferior colliculus (BS), and bilateral primary auditory cortex (PAC). However, frequency-specific scrutiny of source waveforms showed the relative contribution of these nuclei to the aggregate FFR varied across stimulus frequencies. Whereas AN and BS sources produced robust FFRs up to ∼700 Hz, PAC showed weak phase-locking with little FFR energy above the speech fundamental (100 Hz). Notably, CLARA imaging further showed PAC activation was eradicated for FFRs >150 Hz, above which only subcortical sources remained active. Our results show (i) the site of FFR generation varies critically with stimulus frequency; and (ii) opposite the pattern observed in MEG, subcortical structures make the largest contribution to electrically recorded FFRs (AN ≥ BS > PAC). We infer that cortical dominance observed in previous neuromagnetic data is likely due to the bias of MEG to superficial brain tissue, underestimating subcortical structures that drive most of the speech-FFR. Cleanly separating subcortical from cortical FFRs can be achieved by ensuring stimulus frequencies are >150-200 Hz, above the phase-locking limit of cortical neurons.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory brainstem response (ABR) to speech; Auditory evoked potentials (AEPs); Classical low resolution electromagnetic tomography analysis recursively applied (CLARA); Intracerebral dipole generators; Time-frequency analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29604459     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.03.060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  62 in total

1.  A novel EEG paradigm to simultaneously and rapidly assess the functioning of auditory and visual pathways.

Authors:  Kristina C Backer; Andrew S Kessler; Laurel A Lawyer; David P Corina; Lee M Miller
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Interactive effects of linguistic abstraction and stimulus statistics in the online modulation of neural speech encoding.

Authors:  Joseph C Y Lau; Patrick C M Wong; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Frequency-following response among neonates with progressive moderate hyperbilirubinemia.

Authors:  Gabriella Musacchia; Jiong Hu; Vinod K Bhutani; Ronald J Wong; Mei-Ling Tong; Shuping Han; Nikolas H Blevins; Matthew B Fitzgerald
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 2.521

4.  Inherent auditory skills rather than formal music training shape the neural encoding of speech.

Authors:  Kelsey Mankel; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Tone language experience-dependent advantage in pitch representation in brainstem and auditory cortex is maintained under reverberation.

Authors:  Ananthanarayan Krishnan; Chandan H Suresh; Jackson T Gandour
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Age-related differences in binaural masking level differences: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Robert Ellis; Julie Mehta; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Human frequency following responses to iterated rippled noise with positive and negative gain: Differential sensitivity to waveform envelope and temporal fine-structure.

Authors:  Saradha Ananthakrishnan; Ananthanarayan Krishnan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-07-29       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Effects of formant proximity and stimulus prototypicality on the neural discrimination of vowels: Evidence from the auditory frequency-following response.

Authors:  T Christina Zhao; Matthew Masapollo; Linda Polka; Lucie Ménard; Patricia K Kuhl
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 2.381

9.  The Accuracy of Envelope Following Responses in Predicting Speech Audibility.

Authors:  Vijayalakshmi Easwar; Jen Birstler; Adrienne Harrison; Susan Scollie; David Purcell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Lifelong Tone Language Experience does not Eliminate Deficits in Neural Encoding of Pitch in Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Authors:  Joseph C Y Lau; Carol K S To; Judy S K Kwan; Xin Kang; Molly Losh; Patrick C M Wong
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2020-11-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.