Literature DB >> 8227753

Gender differences in cochlear response time: an explanation for gender amplitude differences in the unmasked auditory brain-stem response.

M Don1, C W Ponton, J J Eggermont, A Masuda.   

Abstract

Derived narrow-band auditory brain-stem responses (ABRs) in young normal-hearing subjects revealed a significant gender difference in response time between frequency regions of the cochlea. Females showed shorter delays than males between derived bands. This differential has not been previously reported. As in many early studies, the unmasked amplitude of the wave V complex was significantly larger (30%) in females than males. However, differences in amplitudes of the narrow-band responses were too small to account for the differential in the unmasked response. It is hypothesized that the larger amplitude of the unmasked wave V complex in females occurs because of a faster response time across the cochlea leading to better neural synchrony and, therefore, larger amplitudes. Furthermore, results can be explained by assuming that the stiffness gradient in the cochlea is 13% larger in females than in males. If males and females have the same cochlear tonotopic mapping, the female cochlea should be 13% shorter. This prediction is highly consistent with recent anatomical studies of cochlear length and gender. The results of the present study indicated possibly important cochlear mechanisms that influence the main parameters of ABRs. An understanding of these cochlear mechanisms may improve the diagnostic capabilities of ABRs in patients with peripheral hearing loss.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8227753     DOI: 10.1121/1.407485

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


  40 in total

1.  Perception of across-frequency asynchrony and the role of cochlear delays.

Authors:  Magdalena Wojtczak; Jordan A Beim; Christophe Micheyl; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Are there sex effects for speech intelligibility in American English? Examining the influence of talker, listener, and methodology.

Authors:  Sarah E Yoho; Stephanie A Borrie; Tyson S Barrett; Dane B Whittaker
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Differences by sex, ear, and sexual orientation in the time intervals between successive peaks in auditory evoked potentials.

Authors:  Dennis McFadden; Michelle D Hsieh; Adrian Garcia-Sierra; Craig A Champlin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Auditory brainstem responses to a chirp stimulus designed from derived-band latencies in normal-hearing subjects.

Authors:  Claus Elberling; Manuel Don
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Electrophysiological markers of cochlear function correlate with hearing-in-noise performance among audiometrically normal subjects.

Authors:  Kelsie J Grant; Anita M Mepani; Peizhe Wu; Kenneth E Hancock; Victor de Gruttola; M Charles Liberman; Stéphane F Maison
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Rhythm judgments reveal a frequency asymmetry in the perception and neural coding of sound synchrony.

Authors:  Magdalena Wojtczak; Anahita H Mehta; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Latency of tone-burst-evoked auditory brain stem responses and otoacoustic emissions: level, frequency, and rise-time effects.

Authors:  Daniel M Rasetshwane; Michael Argenyi; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Seasonal plasticity of auditory hair cell frequency sensitivity correlates with plasma steroid levels in vocal fish.

Authors:  Kevin N Rohmann; Andrew H Bass
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 3.312

9.  Are speech-evoked auditory brainstem response (speech-ABR) outcomes influenced by ethnicity?

Authors:  Mohd Normani Zakaria; Bahram Jalaei; Cheu Lih Aw; Dinsuhaimi Sidek
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 3.307

Review 10.  Masculinization of the mammalian cochlea.

Authors:  Dennis McFadden
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.