Literature DB >> 32113293

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

Kenneth S Henry1, Kassidy N Amburgey1, Kristina S Abrams2, Laurel H Carney3.   

Abstract

Previous studies evaluated cues for masked tone detection using reproducible noise waveforms. Human results founded on this approach suggest that tone detection is based on combined energy and envelope (ENV) cues, but detection cues in nonhuman species are less clear. Decision variable correlation (DVC) was used to evaluate tone-in-noise detection cues in the budgerigar, an avian species with human-like behavioral sensitivity to many complex sounds. DVC quantifies a model's ability to predict trial-by-trial variance in behavioral responses. Budgerigars were behaviorally conditioned to detect 500-Hz tones in wideband (WB; 100-3000 Hz) and narrowband (NB; 452-552 Hz) noise. Behavioral responses were obtained using a single-interval, two-alternative discrimination task and two-down, one-up adaptive tracking procedures. Tone-detection thresholds in WB noise were higher than human thresholds, putatively due to broader peripheral frequency tuning, whereas NB thresholds were within ∼1 dB of human results. Budgerigar average hit and false-alarm rates across noise waveforms were consistent, highly correlated across subjects, and correlated to human results. Trial-by-trial behavioral results in NB noise were best explained by a model combining energy and ENV cues. In contrast, WB results were better predicted by ENV-based or multiple-channel energy detector models. These results suggest that budgerigars and humans use similar cues for tone-in-noise detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32113293      PMCID: PMC7010520          DOI: 10.1121/10.0000621

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  48 in total

1.  Hearing in the parakeet (Melopsittacus undulatus): absolute thresholds, critical ratios, frequency difference limens, and vocalizations.

Authors:  R J Dooling; J C Saunders
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1975-01

Review 2.  Neural processing of amplitude-modulated sounds.

Authors:  P X Joris; C E Schreiner; A Rees
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 37.312

3.  Critical bands and critical ratios in animal psychoacoustics: an example using chinchilla data.

Authors:  William A Yost; William P Shofner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Cues for Diotic and Dichotic Detection of a 500-Hz Tone in Noise Vary with Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Junwen Mao; Kelly-Jo Koch; Karen A Doherty; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-05-15

5.  Tone-in-noise detection using envelope cues: comparison of signal-processing-based and physiological models.

Authors:  Junwen Mao; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-09-30

6.  A two-path model of auditory modulation detection using temporal fine structure and envelope cues.

Authors:  Stephan D Ewert; Nihaad Paraouty; Christian Lorenzi
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 3.386

7.  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

8.  Formant-frequency discrimination of synthesized vowels in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) and humans.

Authors:  Kenneth S Henry; Kassidy N Amburgey; Kristina S Abrams; Fabio Idrobo; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Binaural detection with narrowband and wideband reproducible noise maskers: II. Results for rabbit.

Authors:  Ling Zheng; Susan J Early; Christine R Mason; Fabio Idrobo; J Michael Harrison; Laurel H Carney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Behavioral measures of frequency selectivity in the chinchilla.

Authors:  A J Niemiec; W A Yost; W P Shofner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.