The presence of non-simultaneous maskers can result in strong impairment in auditory intensity resolution relative to a condition without maskers, and causes a complex pattern of effects that is difficult to explain on the basis of peripheral processing. We suggest that the failure of selective attention to the target tones is a useful framework for understanding these effects. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that the sequential grouping of the targets and the maskers into separate auditory objects facilitates selective attention and therefore reduces the masker-induced impairment in intensity resolution. In Experiment 1, a condition favoring the processing of the maskers and the targets as two separate auditory objects due to grouping by temporal proximity was contrasted with the usual forward masking setting where the masker and the target presented within each observation interval of the two-interval task can be expected to be grouped together. As expected, the former condition resulted in a significantly smaller masker-induced elevation of the intensity difference limens (DLs). In Experiment 2, embedding the targets in an isochronous sequence of maskers led to a significantly smaller DL-elevation than control conditions not favoring the perception of the maskers as a separate auditory stream. The observed effects of grouping are compatible with the assumption that a precise representation of target intensity is available at the decision stage, but that this information is used only in a suboptimal fashion due to limitations of selective attention. The data can be explained within a framework of object-based attention. The results impose constraints on physiological models of intensity discrimination. We discuss candidate structures for physiological correlates of the psychophysical data.

Hearing impairment is one of the most common sensory deficits in humans. Hearing aids are helpful to patients but can have poor sound quality or transmission due to insufficient output or acoustic feedback, such as for high frequencies. Implantable devices partially overcome these issues but require surgery with limited locations for device attachment. Here, we investigate a new optoacoustic approach to vibrate the hearing organ with laser stimulation to improve frequency bandwidth, not requiring attachment to specific vibratory structures, and potentially reduce acoustic feedback. We developed a laser pulse modulation strategy and simulated its response at the umbo (1–10 kHz) based on a convolution-based model. We achieved frequency-specific activation in which non-contact laser stimulation of the umbo, as well as within the middle ear at the round window and otic capsule, induced precise shifts in the maximal vibratory response of the umbo and neural activation within the inferior colliculus of guinea pigs, corresponding to the targeted, modelled and then stimulated frequency. There was also no acoustic feedback detected from laser stimulation with our experimental setup. These findings open up the potential for using a convolution-based optoacoustic approach as a new type of laser hearing aid or middle ear implant.

Hearing impairment affects ∼460 million people worldwide. Conservative therapies, such as hearing aids, bone conduction systems, and middle ear implants, do not always sufficiently compensate for this deficit. The optical stimulation is currently under investigation as an alternative stimulation strategy for the activation of the hearing system. To assess the biocompatibility margins of this emerging technology, we established a method applicable in whole-mount preparations of murine tympanic membranes (TM). We irradiated the TM of anesthetized mice with 532-nm laser pulses at an average power of 50, 89, 99, and 125 mW at two different locations of the TM and monitored the hearing function with auditory brainstem responses. Laserpower-dependent negative side effects to the TM were observed at power levels exceeding 89 mW. Although we did not find any significant negative effects of optical stimulation on the hearing function in these mice, based on the histology results further studies are necessary for optimization of the used parameters. © The Authors. Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.

Nonsimultaneous maskers can strongly impair performance in an auditory intensity discrimination task. Using methods of molecular psychophysics, we quantified the extent to which (1) a masker-induced impairment of the representation of target intensity (i.e., increase in internal noise) and (2) a systematic influence of the masker intensities on the decision variable contribute to these effects. In a two-interval intensity discrimination procedure, targets were presented in quiet, and combined with forward maskers. The lateralization of the maskers relative to the targets was varied via the interaural time difference. Intensity difference limens (DLs) were strongly elevated under forward masking but less with contralateral than with ipsilateral maskers. For most listeners and conditions, perceptual weights measuring the relation between the target and masker levels and the response in the intensity discrimination task were positive and significant. Higher perceptual weights assigned to the maskers corresponded to stronger elevations of the intensity DL. The maskers caused only a weak increase in internal noise, unrelated to target level and masker lateralization. The results indicate that the effects of forward masking on intensity discrimination are determined by an inclusion of the masker intensities in the decision variable, compatible with the hypothesis that the impairment in performance is to a large part caused by difficulties in directing selective attention to the targets. The effects of masker lateralization are evidence for top-down influences, and the observed positive signs of the masker weights suggest that the relevant mechanisms are located at higher processing stages rather than in the auditory periphery.

No abstract