Decorrelation Sensitivity of Auditory Nerve and Anteroventral Cochlear Nucleus Fibers to Broadband and Narrowband Noise

Louage, Dries H.; Joris, Philip X.; Heijden, Marcel van der

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2339-05.2006

Cited by 33 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The neural cross-correlation metrics developed here represent an extension of shuffled auto-and crosscorrelogram analyses recently developed by Joris and colleagues (Joris 2003;Louage et al 2004Louage et al , 2006Joris et al 2006a, b). These neural metrics provide normalized representations of correlated temporal coding computed as the degree of common temporal fluctuations in two-spike trains (cross-correlograms) relative to the degree of temporal coding within each spike-train response individually (autocorrelograms).…”

Section: A Normalized Representation Of Neural Cross-correlationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying Envelope and Fine-Structure Coding in Auditory Nerve Responses to Chimaeric Speech

Heinz

Swaminathan

2009

JARO

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any sound can be separated mathematically into a slowly varying envelope and rapidly varying finestructure component. This property has motivated numerous perceptual studies to understand the relative importance of each component for speech and music perception. Specialized acoustic stimuli, such as auditory chimaeras with the envelope of one sound and fine structure of another have been used to separate the perceptual roles for envelope and fine structure. Cochlear narrowband filtering limits the ability to isolate fine structure from envelope; however, envelope recovery from fine structure has been difficult to evaluate physiologically. To evaluate envelope recovery at the output of the cochlea, neural cross-correlation coefficients were developed that quantify the similarity between two sets of spike-train responses. Shuffled auto-and cross-correlogram analyses were used to compute separate correlations for responses to envelope and fine structure based on both model and recorded spike trains from auditory nerve fibers. Previous correlogram analyses were extended to isolate envelope coding more effectively in auditory nerve fibers with low center frequencies, which are particularly important for speech coding. Recovered speech envelopes were present in both model and recorded responses to one-and 16-band speech fine-structure chimaeras and were significantly greater for the one-band case, consistent with perceptual studies. Model predictions suggest that cochlear recovered envelopes are reduced following sensorineural hearing loss due to broadened tuning associated with outer-hair cell dysfunction. In addition to the within-fiber cross-stimulus cases considered here, these neural cross-correlation coefficients can also be used to evaluate spatiotemporal coding by applying them to cross-fiber within-stimulus conditions. Thus, these neural metrics can be used to quantitatively evaluate a wide range of perceptually significant temporal coding issues relevant to normal and impaired hearing.

show abstract

Section: A Normalized Representation Of Neural Cross-correlationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying Envelope and Fine-Structure Coding in Auditory Nerve Responses to Chimaeric Speech

Heinz

Swaminathan

2009

JARO

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The stimulus is illustrated schematically in Fig. 1, I and J and a more detailed description can be found in Louage et al (2006). Two independent tokens of Gaussian broadband noise (lower cutoff 50 or 100 Hz; upper cutoff between 8 and 10 kHz) were either presented unmixed as reference tokens or combined to produce different mixed tokens.…”

Section: Ic Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interaural correlation values were either evenly spaced, as in the IC experiments, or spaced unequally to maximize the sampling close to an interaural correlation of 1 (1, 0.99, 0.96, 0.911, 0.844, 0.76, 0, Ϫ1) (Louage et al 2006).…”

Section: Construction Of "Binaural" Responses From An Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Bandwidths in the Inferior Colliculus and the Auditory Nerve. I. Measurement Using a Spectrally Manipulated Stimulus

Laughlin¹,

Sande²,

Heijden³

et al. 2007

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A defining feature of auditory systems across animal divisions is the ability to sort different frequency components of a sound into separate neural frequency channels. Narrowband filtering in the auditory periphery is of obvious advantage for the representation of sound spectrum and manifests itself pervasively in human psychophysical studies as the critical band. Peripheral filtering also alters coding of the temporal waveform, so that temporal responses in the auditory periphery reflect both the stimulus waveform and peripheral filtering. Temporal coding is essential for the measurement of the time delay between waveforms at the two ears—a critical component of sound localization. A number of human psychophysical studies have shown a wider effective critical bandwidth with binaural stimuli than with monaural stimuli, although other studies found no difference. Here we directly compare binaural and monaural bandwidths (BWs) in the anesthetized cat. We measure monaural BW in the auditory nerve (AN) and binaural BW in the inferior colliculus (IC) using spectrally manipulated broadband noise and response metrics that reflect spike timing. The stimulus was a pair of noise tokens that were interaurally in phase for all frequencies below a certain flip frequency (fflip) and that had an interaural phase difference of π above fflip. The response was measured as a function of fflip and, using a separate stimulus protocol, as a function of interaural correlation. We find that both AN and IC filter BW depend on characteristic frequency, but that there is no difference in mean BW between the AN and IC.

show abstract

“…However, in measurements of IAC sensitivity (Shackleton et al 2005), we found that the neural thresholds did not match the behavioral thresholds, being at least three times worse. Thus, although IAC and ITD discrimination are closely linked theoretically (e.g., Colburn and Durlach 1978;Durlach et al 1986;Koehnke et al 1986;Shackleton et al 2005;Louage et al 2006), they appear to be give different results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Contributions of Intrinsic Neural and Stimulus Variance to Binaural Sensitivity

Shackleton

Palmer

2006

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discrimination of a change in a stimulus is determined both by the magnitude of that change and by the variability in the neural response to the stimulus. When the stimulus is itself noisy, then the relative contributions of the neural (intrinsic) and stimulus induced variability becomes a critical question. We measured the contribution of intrinsic neural noise and interstimulus variability to the discrimination of interaural time differences (ITDs) and interaural correlation (IAC). We measured discharge rate versus characteristic frequency (CF) tone ITD functions, and CF-centered narrowband noise ITD and IAC functions in interleaved blocks in the same units in the inferior colliculus of urethaneanesthetized guinea pigs. Ten Bfrozen^tokens of noise were synthesized and the responses to each token were separately analyzed to allow the relative contributions of intrinsic and stimulus variability to be assessed. ITD and IAC discrimination thresholds were determined for a simulated two-interval forcedchoice experiment, based on the firing rate distributions, using receiver operating characteristic analysis. On average, between stimulus variability contributed 19% (range, 1.5-30%) of the variance in noise ITD discrimination and 27% (range, 3-50%) in IAC discrimination. Noise ITD thresholds were slightly higher than tone ITD thresholds. Taking the mean of the thresholds for individual noise tokens gave a similar result to pooling across all noise tokens. This implies that although the stimulus induced variability is measurable, it is insignificant in relation to the intrinsic noise in ITD and IAC discrimination.

show abstract

Decorrelation Sensitivity of Auditory Nerve and Anteroventral Cochlear Nucleus Fibers to Broadband and Narrowband Noise

Cited by 33 publications

References 44 publications

Quantifying Envelope and Fine-Structure Coding in Auditory Nerve Responses to Chimaeric Speech

Quantifying Envelope and Fine-Structure Coding in Auditory Nerve Responses to Chimaeric Speech

Comparison of Bandwidths in the Inferior Colliculus and the Auditory Nerve. I. Measurement Using a Spectrally Manipulated Stimulus

Contributions of Intrinsic Neural and Stimulus Variance to Binaural Sensitivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About