Interaural delay-dependent changes in the binaural interaction component of the guinea pig brainstem responses

Interaural delay-dependent changes in the binaural difference potential of the human auditory brain stem response

“…Ungan et al (1997) found a larger standard deviation for the excitatory arrival time than for the arrival time of the inhibition (r e = 0.4 ms, r i = 0.12 ms) while for the human model both values are nearly identical (0.63 ms). In a recent article, Goksoy et al (2005) applied the same model to guinea pig data and found comparable standard deviations of the arrival times (r e = 0.17 ms, r i = 0.23 ms). Both, human and cat model, yield a faster arrival of the contralateral inhibitory input compared to the ipsilateral excitatory input.…”

“…The dependence of binaural difference potentials on the ITD has been analyzed in guinea pig (Dobie and Berlin, 1979;Goksoy et al, 2005), cat (Sontheimer et al, 1985;Ungan et al, 1997Ungan et al, , 2002 and humans (Wrege and Starr, 1981;Gerull and Mrowinski, 1984;Kelly-Ballweber and Dobie, 1984;Furst et al, 1985Furst et al, , 1990Jones and Van der Poel, 1990;McPherson and Starr, 1995;Polyakov and Pratt, 1996;Pratt et al, 1997;Brantberg et al, 1999;Riedel and Kollmeier, 2002a;Delb, 2003;Riedel and Kollmeier, 2003;Furst et al, 2004). The results of these studies are partially conflicting and were often interpreted against the background of the model by Jeffress (1948), the prevailing paradigm for azimuthal sound localization for now more than half a century.…”

Auditory brainstem activity in children with 9–30 months of bilateral cochlear implant use

“…This difference between the binaural and summated responses is typically plotted over the recording interval and referred to as the binaural difference (BD) response or binaural interaction component (BIC). The underlying mechanism for this phenomenon has been proposed to involve binaural processes in the superior olivary complex (Goksoy et al, 2005;McPherson and Starr, 1993;Melcher, 1996;Riedel and Kollmeier, 2006;Zaaroor and Starr, 1991). Interaural timing and level changes appear to affect both the latency and amplitude of the difference waveform (Furst et al, 1985;Riedel and Kollmeier, 2006;Ungan et al, 1997) correlating with psychophysical measures of sound lateralization (Furst et al, 1985(Furst et al, , 1990(Furst et al, , 1995(Furst et al, , 2000.…”

“…Based on our previous work in which EABR wave latencies were found to decrease over the first year of implant use (Gordon et al, 2003(Gordon et al, , 2006(Gordon et al, , 2007, we expected that: (a) responses evoked by either implant would show latency differences in children implanted sequentially but not simultaneously; (b) decreases in wave latencies with implant use would occur in ears with <1 year implant experience; and (c) children with long delays between implants would show minimal changes in wave latencies evoked in the experienced ear (>2 years of implant use). Given the importance of relative timing in responses evoked by either ear on the latency of the normal binaural difference wave (Furst et al, 1985;Goksoy et al, 2005;Riedel and Kollmeier, 2006), we also expected that latency differences in wave eV evoked by left versus right cochlear implants in children with long or short delays between implants would be associated with latency delays in electrically evoked binaural difference responses.…”

Binaural Interactions Develop in the Auditory Brainstem of Children Who Are Deaf: Effects of Place and Level of Bilateral Electrical Stimulation

“…Although previous studies of normal human binaural processing have used magnetic resonance imaging of the inferior colliculus (Thompson et al, 2006), this technique is contraindicated for CI users (Majdani et al, 2008). Binaural interaction can also be studied using electrophysiology as shown in normal hearing individuals (Wada and Starr, 1989;Furst et al, 1990;Jiang and Tierney, 1996;Goksoy et al, 2005) as well as bilateral CI users (adults: He et al, 2010; children: Gordon et al, 2007a;cats: Smith and Delgutte, 2007). Using this technique, we demonstrate that binaural processing in the brainstem of children using bilateral CIs: (1) occurs regardless of bilateral or unilateral deafness, (2) is disrupted by large but not small mismatches in place of stimulation and (3) codes perceptible changes in level cues.…”