Cargando…

Temporal Processing in the Auditory System: Insights from Cochlear and Auditory Midbrain Implantees

Central auditory processing in humans was investigated by comparing the perceptual effects of temporal parameters of electrical stimulation in auditory midbrain implant (AMI) and cochlear implant (CI) users. Four experiments were conducted to measure the following: effect of interpulse intervals on...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McKay, Colette M., Lim, Hubert H., Lenarz, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3540271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23073669
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0354-z
_version_ 1782255209904340992
author McKay, Colette M.
Lim, Hubert H.
Lenarz, Thomas
author_facet McKay, Colette M.
Lim, Hubert H.
Lenarz, Thomas
author_sort McKay, Colette M.
collection PubMed
description Central auditory processing in humans was investigated by comparing the perceptual effects of temporal parameters of electrical stimulation in auditory midbrain implant (AMI) and cochlear implant (CI) users. Four experiments were conducted to measure the following: effect of interpulse intervals on detection thresholds and loudness; temporal modulation transfer functions (TMTFs); effect of duration on detection thresholds; and forward masking decay. The CI data were consistent with a phenomenological model that based detection or loudness decisions on the output of a sliding temporal integration window, the input to which was the hypothetical auditory nerve response to each stimulus pulse. To predict the AMI data, the model required changes to both the neural response input (i.e., midbrain activity to AMI stimuli, compared to auditory nerve activity to CI stimuli) and the shape of the integration window. AMI data were consistent with a neural response that decreased more steeply compared to CI stimulation as the pulse rate increased or interpulse interval decreased. For one AMI subject, the data were consistent with a significant adaptation of the neural response for rates above 200 Hz. The AMI model required an integration window that was significantly wider (i.e., decreased temporal resolution) than that for CI data, the latter being well fit using the same integration window shape as derived from normal-hearing data. These models provide a useful way to conceptualize how stimulation of central auditory structures differs from stimulation of the auditory nerve and to better understand why AMI users have difficulty processing temporal cues important for speech understanding.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3540271
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35402712013-01-10 Temporal Processing in the Auditory System: Insights from Cochlear and Auditory Midbrain Implantees McKay, Colette M. Lim, Hubert H. Lenarz, Thomas J Assoc Res Otolaryngol Research Article Central auditory processing in humans was investigated by comparing the perceptual effects of temporal parameters of electrical stimulation in auditory midbrain implant (AMI) and cochlear implant (CI) users. Four experiments were conducted to measure the following: effect of interpulse intervals on detection thresholds and loudness; temporal modulation transfer functions (TMTFs); effect of duration on detection thresholds; and forward masking decay. The CI data were consistent with a phenomenological model that based detection or loudness decisions on the output of a sliding temporal integration window, the input to which was the hypothetical auditory nerve response to each stimulus pulse. To predict the AMI data, the model required changes to both the neural response input (i.e., midbrain activity to AMI stimuli, compared to auditory nerve activity to CI stimuli) and the shape of the integration window. AMI data were consistent with a neural response that decreased more steeply compared to CI stimulation as the pulse rate increased or interpulse interval decreased. For one AMI subject, the data were consistent with a significant adaptation of the neural response for rates above 200 Hz. The AMI model required an integration window that was significantly wider (i.e., decreased temporal resolution) than that for CI data, the latter being well fit using the same integration window shape as derived from normal-hearing data. These models provide a useful way to conceptualize how stimulation of central auditory structures differs from stimulation of the auditory nerve and to better understand why AMI users have difficulty processing temporal cues important for speech understanding. Springer-Verlag 2012-10-17 2013-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3540271/ /pubmed/23073669 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0354-z Text en © The Author(s) 2012 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
McKay, Colette M.
Lim, Hubert H.
Lenarz, Thomas
Temporal Processing in the Auditory System: Insights from Cochlear and Auditory Midbrain Implantees
title Temporal Processing in the Auditory System: Insights from Cochlear and Auditory Midbrain Implantees
title_full Temporal Processing in the Auditory System: Insights from Cochlear and Auditory Midbrain Implantees
title_fullStr Temporal Processing in the Auditory System: Insights from Cochlear and Auditory Midbrain Implantees
title_full_unstemmed Temporal Processing in the Auditory System: Insights from Cochlear and Auditory Midbrain Implantees
title_short Temporal Processing in the Auditory System: Insights from Cochlear and Auditory Midbrain Implantees
title_sort temporal processing in the auditory system: insights from cochlear and auditory midbrain implantees
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3540271/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23073669
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0354-z
work_keys_str_mv AT mckaycolettem temporalprocessingintheauditorysysteminsightsfromcochlearandauditorymidbrainimplantees
AT limhuberth temporalprocessingintheauditorysysteminsightsfromcochlearandauditorymidbrainimplantees
AT lenarzthomas temporalprocessingintheauditorysysteminsightsfromcochlearandauditorymidbrainimplantees