Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
24
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
references
References 172 publications
0
24
1
Order By: Relevance
“…CS effects in CBA/CaJ mice are largest for MF ~ 1 kHz ( Shaheen et al., 2015 ), that reflect mostly auditory nerve activity, but some differences are apparent also at MFs ~ 100 Hz ( Parthasarathy and Kujawa, 2018 ), that reflect mostly brainstem activity. It has been hypothesized that smaller CS effects are seen at lower AM rates because of compensatory mechanisms increasing gain at brainstem and cortical levels ( Parthasarathy, Bartlett, Kujawa, 2019 , Parthasarathy, Kujawa, 2018 ); however, there is evidence that these compensatory mechanisms may themselves decline with age ( Möhrle et al., 2016 ). A recent study using transposed tones with a 4-kHz carrier failed to find age effects at higher modulation rates in the range of 240–285 Hz ( Prendergast et al., 2019 ), suggesting that targeting higher MFs may not better reveal potential CS effects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CS effects in CBA/CaJ mice are largest for MF ~ 1 kHz ( Shaheen et al., 2015 ), that reflect mostly auditory nerve activity, but some differences are apparent also at MFs ~ 100 Hz ( Parthasarathy and Kujawa, 2018 ), that reflect mostly brainstem activity. It has been hypothesized that smaller CS effects are seen at lower AM rates because of compensatory mechanisms increasing gain at brainstem and cortical levels ( Parthasarathy, Bartlett, Kujawa, 2019 , Parthasarathy, Kujawa, 2018 ); however, there is evidence that these compensatory mechanisms may themselves decline with age ( Möhrle et al., 2016 ). A recent study using transposed tones with a 4-kHz carrier failed to find age effects at higher modulation rates in the range of 240–285 Hz ( Prendergast et al., 2019 ), suggesting that targeting higher MFs may not better reveal potential CS effects.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because the attentional modulation of the brainstem response must involve the corticofugal pathways from the cortex to the brainstem, our finding may indicate that subjects who found it harder to understand speech in noise relied more on this neural feedback mechanism, perhaps to compensate for more central processing deficits. The increased attentional modulation of the brainstem response in subjects who exhibited poorer speech-in-noise comprehension might also have reflected compensation mechanisms at a subcortical level, such as in the inferior colliculus [59][60][61] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While some studies have reported no differences in the processing of amplitude modulation (AM) between older and younger normal-hearing adults (Boettcher et al, 2001;Grose et al, 2019;Schoof et al, 2014), others found that envelope processing declines with age, particularly at fast modulation rates (Kumar et al, 2011;Purcell et al, 2004). Age-related deficits in temporal-envelope processing have been consistently observed in animal models (Herrmann et al, 2017;Parthasarathy et al, 2018a;Parthasarathy et al, 2018b), suggesting that similar declines could occur in aging humans.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%