Brainstem Representation of Auditory Overshoot in Guinea pigs, using Auditory Brainstem Responses
Iranian Journal of Child Neurology,
Vol. 15 No. 2 (2021),
1 March 2021
https://doi.org/10.22037/ijcn.v15i2.26241
Abstract
Objective
It is easier for a listener to detect a brief tonal signal presented in a longer masking noise by increasing the delay between the signal and the masker. This phenomenon (overshoot) is influenced by a reduction in cochlear amplification and to date, there is no objective tool to investigate it. Therefore, a different paradigm of the auditory brainstem response (ABR) was utilized to measure auditory overshoot. It was assumed that increasing the delay onset time (DOT) between a signal and a masker reduces the latencies of waves I and III.
Materials & Methods
Sixteen normal young male guinea pigs were tested. A tone burst stimulus (signal: 16 kHz, 5ms in duration) and wide-band noise (masker: 0.1-8.0 kHz, 100ms in duration) at three DOTs were used. To diminish the effect of the noise on waves, waveforms were subtracted from those derived from the noise burst alone. The absolute latency of the waves I and III, inter-peak latency of the waves I-III, and amplitude ratio of the waves III/I were compared for the 0, 30, and 100ms DOTs and five signal-to-noise ratios.
Results
The latencies of increased from the 0 to 30ms DOT and then decreased from the 30 to 100ms DOT (p < 0.001). No significant changes were observed in the latency waves at the 100ms DOT compared to the 0ms DOT (p > 0.005). Moreover, there were no significant differences between the three DOTs regarding the inter-peak latency and amplitude ratio of the waves (p <0.005).
Conclusion
The study results showed an overshoot-like electrophysiological effect using ABR. Therefore, an objective test was used to investigate auditory cochlear gain.
- Auditory brainstem response
- Overshoot
- Temporal effect
- Delay onset time
- Latency
How to Cite
References
Fletcher M, de Boer J, Krumbholz K. Is overshoot caused by an efferent reduction in cochlear gain? Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013;787:65-72.
Fletcher M, de Boer J, Krumbholz K. Is offfrequency overshoot caused by adaptation of suppression?J Assoc Res Oto. 2015;16(2):241- 53.
McFadden D, Walsh KP, Pasanen EG, Grenwelge EM. Overshoot using very short signal delays. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.2010;128(4):1915-21.
Walsh KP, Pasanen EG, McFadden D. Overshoot measured physiologically and psychophysically in the same human ears. Hear. Res. 2010;268(1- 2):22-37.
Jennings SG, Heinz MG, Strickland EA. Evaluating adaptation and olivocochlear efferent feedback as potential explanations of psychophysical overshoot. J Assoc Res Oto. 2011;12(3):345-60.
Keefe DH, Schairer KS, Ellison JC, Fitzpatrick DF, Jesteadt W. Use of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions to investigate efferent and cochlear contributions to temporal overshoot. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.2009;125(3):1595-604.
von Klitzing R, Kohlrausch A. Effect of masker level on overshoot in running- and frozen-noise maskers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1994;95(4):2192- 201.
Schmidt S, Zwicker E. The effect of masker spectral asymmetry on overshoot in simultaneous masking. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1991;89(3):1324 30.
Chatterjee M, Smith RL. Physiological overshoot and the compound action potential. Hear. Res. 1993;69(1-2):45-54.
Overson GJ, Bacon SP, Webb TM. The effect of level and relative frequency region on the recovery of overshoot. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1996;99(2):1059-65.
Bacon SP. Effect of masker level on overshoot. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990;88(2):698-702.
Hicks ML, Bacon SP. The effect of pure-tone forward masking on overshoot. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1991;90(1):228-30.
Heffner HE, Heffner RS. Hearing ranges of laboratory animals. J Am Assoc Lab Anim.2007;46(1):20-2.
Robertson D, Gummer M. Physiological and morphological characterization of efferent neurones in the guinea pig cochlea. Hear. Res.
;20(1):63-77.
J. H. New handbook of auditory evoked responses: pearson education; 2007.
Shi W, Ji F, Lan L, Liang SC, Ding HN, Wang H, et al. Characteristics of cochlear microphonics in infants and young children with auditory
neuropathy. Acta Otolaryngol. 2012;132(2):188- 96.
de Boer J, Yasin I, Drga V, Plack CJ. Effect of human auditory efferent feedback on cochlear gain and compression.J Assoc Res Oto.
;34(46):15319-26.
Eggermont JJ. Peripheral auditory adaptation and fatigue: a model oriented review. Hear. Res. 1985;18(1):57-71.
Guinan JJ, Jr., Cooper NP. Medial olivocochlear efferent inhibition of basilar-membrane responses to clicks: evidence for two modes of cochlear mechanical excitation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2008;124(2):1080-92.
Brown MC. Morphology and response properties of single olivocochlear fibers in the guinea pig. Hear. Res. 1989;40(1-2):93-109.
Tomchik S, Lu Z. Modulation of Auditory Signal-to-Noise Ratios by Efferent Stimulation.J Neurophysiol. 2006;95(6):3562-70.
Lichtenhan JT, Wilson US, Hancock KE, Guinan JJ, Jr. Medial olivocochlear efferent reflex inhibition of human cochlear nerve responses. Hear. Res. 2016;333:216-24.
Guinan JJ, Jr. Olivocochlear efferents: Their action, effects, measurement and uses, and the impact of the new conception of cochlear mechanical responses. Hear. Res. 2018;362:38- 47.
Chambers AR, Hancock KE, Maison SF, Liberman MC, Polley DB. Sound-evoked olivocochlear activation in unanesthetized mice. J Assoc Res Oto.2012;13(2):209-17.
- Abstract Viewed: 413 times