Tone-Evoked Acoustic Change Complex (ACC) Recorded in a Sedated Animal Model

  • Alessandro PresaccoEmail author
  • John C. Middlebrooks
Research Article


The acoustic change complex (ACC) is a scalp-recorded cortical evoked potential complex generated in response to changes (e.g., frequency, amplitude) in an auditory stimulus. The ACC has been well studied in humans, but to our knowledge, no animal model has been evaluated. In particular, it was not known whether the ACC could be recorded under the conditions of sedation that likely would be necessary for recordings from animals. For that reason, we tested the feasibility of recording ACC from sedated cats in response to changes of frequency and amplitude of pure-tone stimuli. Cats were sedated with ketamine and acepromazine, and subdermal needle electrodes were used to record electroencephalographic (EEG) activity. Tones were presented from a small loudspeaker located near the right ear. Continuous tones alternated at 500-ms intervals between two frequencies or two levels. Neurometric functions were created by recording neural response amplitudes while systematically varying the magnitude of steps in frequency centered in octave frequency around 2, 4, 8, and 16 kHz, all at 75 dB SPL, or in decibel level around 75 dB SPL tested at 4 and 8 kHz. The ACC could be recorded readily under this ketamine/azepromazine sedation. In contrast, ACC could not be recorded reliably under any level of isoflurane anesthesia that was tested. The minimum frequency (expressed as Weber fractions (df/f)) or level steps (expressed in dB) needed to elicit ACC fell in the range of previous thresholds reported in animal psychophysical tests of discrimination. The success in recording ACC in sedated animals suggests that the ACC will be a useful tool for evaluation of other aspects of auditory acuity in normal hearing and, presumably, in electrical cochlear stimulation, especially for novel stimulation modes that are not yet feasible in humans.


frequency acuity auditory-evoked potential level acuity frequency change cat 



This work was supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders grants R01 DC000420 (to JCM) and T32 DC010775 (to AP). We thank Elizabeth A. McGuire and Zekiye Onsan for their technical and administrative assistance.


  1. Arlinger SD, Jerlvall LB (1979) Results of psychoacoustic and cortical evoked potential experiments using frequency and amplitude modulated stimuli. Scand Audiol Suppl: 229–239Google Scholar
  2. Arlinger SD, Jerlvall LB, Ahren T, Holmgren EC (1976) Slow evoked cortical responses to linear frequency ramps of a continuous pure tone. Acta Physiol Scand 98:412–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57:289–300Google Scholar
  4. Brown CJ, Etler C, He S, O’Brien S, Erenberg S, Kim J-R, Dhuldhoya AN, Abbas PJ (2008) The electrically evoked auditory change complex: preliminary results from nucleus cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 29:704–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown M, Irvine DR, Park VN (2004) Perceptual learning on an auditory frequency discrimination task by cats: association with changes in primary auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex 14:952–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler RA, Diamond IT, Neff WD (1957) Role of auditory cortex in discrimination of changes in frequency. J Neurophysiol 20:108–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen KH, Small SA (2015) Elicitation of the acoustic change complex to long-duration speech stimuli in four-month-old infants. Int J Otolaryngol 2015:562030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dimitrijevic A, Michalewski HJ, Zeng F-G, Pratt H, Starr A (2008) Frequency changes in a continuous tone: auditory cortical potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 119:2111–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dimitrijevic A, Lolli B, Michalewski HJ, Pratt H, Zeng F-G, Starr A (2009) Intensity changes in a continuous tone: auditory cortical potentials comparison with frequency changes. Clin Neurophysiol 120:374–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dimitrijevic A, Starr A, Bhatt S, Michalewski HJ, Zeng FG, Pratt H (2011) Auditory cortical N100 in pre- and post-synaptic auditory neuropathy to frequency or intensity changes of continuous tones. Clin Neurophysiol 122:594–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Efron B, Tibshirani R (1991) Statistical data analysis in the computer age. Science 253:390–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliott DN, McGee TM (1965) Effect of cochlear lesions upon audiograms and intensity discrimination in cats. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 74:386–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliott DN, Stein L, Harrison MJ (1960) Determination of absolute-intensity thresholds and frequency-difference thresholds in cats. J Acoust Soc Am 32:380–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  15. Haenggi M, Ypparila H, Takala J, Korhonen I, Luginbuhl M, Petersen-Felix S, Jakob SM (2004) Measuring depth of sedation with auditory evoked potentials during controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil in healthy volunteers. Anesth Analg 99:1728–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall JL, Goldstein Jr MH (1968) Representation of binaural stimuli by single units in primary auditory cortex of unanesthetized cats. J Acoust Soc Am 43:456–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Han JH, Dimitrijevic A (2015) Acoustic change responses to amplitude modulation: a method to quantify cortical temporal processing and hemispheric asymmetry. Front Neurosci 9:38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris KC, Mills JH, Dubno JR (2007) Electrophysiologic correlates of intensity discrimination in cortical evoked potentials of younger and older adults. Hear Res 228:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. He S, Grose JH, Buchman CA (2012) Auditory discrimination: the relationship between psychophysical and electrophysiological measures. Int J Audiol 51:771–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heffner RS, Heffner HE (1985) Hearing range of the domestic cat. Hear Res 19:85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hienz RD, Sachs MB, Aleszczyk CM (1993) Frequency discrimination in noise: comparison of cat performances with auditory-nerve models. J Acoust Soc Am 93:462–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hine J, Debener S (2007) Late auditory evoked potentials asymmetry revisited. Clin Neurophysiol 118:1274–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Igarashi M, Cranford JL, Allen EA, Alford BR (1979a) Behavioral auditory function after transection of crossed olivo-cochlear bundle in the cat. V. Pure-tone intensity discrimination. Acta Otolaryngol 87:429–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Igarashi M, Cranford JL, Nakai Y, Alford BR (1979b) Behavioral auditory function after transection of crossed olivo-cochlear bundle in the cat. IV. Study on pure-tone frequency discrimination. Acta Otolaryngol 87:79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kohn M, Lifshitz K, Litchfield D (1978) Averaged evoked potentials and frequency modulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 45:236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Macmillan NA, Kaplan HL (1985) Detection theory analysis of group data: estimating sensitivity from average hit and false-alarm rates. Psychol Bull 98:185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (2005) Detection theory: a user’s guide, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin BA (2007) Can the acoustic change complex be recorded in an individual with a cochlear implant? Separating neural responses from cochlear implant artifact. J Am Acad Audiol 18:126–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin BA, Boothroyd A (1999) Cortical, auditory, event-related potentials in response to periodic and aperiodic stimuli with the same spectral envelope. Ear Hear 20:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin BA, Boothroyd A (2000) Cortical, auditory, evoked potentials in response to changes of spectrum and amplitude. J Acoust Soc Am 107:2155–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin BA, Boothroyd A, Ali D, Leach-Berth T (2010) Stimulus presentation strategies for eliciting the acoustic change complex: increasing efficiency. Ear Hear 31:356–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martinez AS, Eisenberg LS, Boothroyd A (2013) The acoustic change complex in young children with hearing loss: a preliminary study. Semin Hear 34:278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Middlebrooks JC, Snyder RL (2007) Auditory prosthesis with a penetrating nerve array. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8:258–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Middlebrooks JC, Snyder RL (2008) Intraneural stimulation for auditory prosthesis: modiolar trunk and intracranial stimulation sites. Hear Res 242:52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Middlebrooks JC, Snyder RL (2010) Selective electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve activates a pathway specialized for high temporal acuity. J Neurosci 30:1937–1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moller AR, Jannetta PJ, Sekhar LN (1988) Contributions from the auditory nerve to the brain-stem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs): results of intracranial recording in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 71:198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Näätänen R, Gaillard AWK, Mäntysalo S (1978) Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychol 42:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neff WD, Hind JE (1955) Auditory thresholds of the cat. J Acoust Soc Am 27:480–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelken I, Ulanovsky N (2007) Mismatch negativity and stimulus-specific adaptation in animal models. J Psychophysiol 21:214–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pantev C, Lutkenhoner B, Hoke M, Lehnertz K (1986) Comparison between simultaneously recorded auditory-evoked magnetic fields and potentials elicited by ipsilateral, contralateral and binaural tone burst stimulation. Audiology 25:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ross B, Herdman AT, Pantev C (2005) Right hemispheric laterality of human 40 Hz auditory steady-state responses. Cereb Cortex 15:2029–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Savoia G, Esposito C, Belfiore F, Amantea B, Cuocolo R (1988) Propofol infusion and auditory evoked potentials. Anaesthesia 43(Suppl):46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scheperle RA, Abbas PJ (2015) Peripheral and central contributions to cortical responses in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 36:430–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sokolovski A (1973) Normal threshold of hearing for cat for free-field listening. Arch Klin Exp Ohren Nasen Kehlkopfheilkd 203:232–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stecker GC, Harrington IA, Middlebrooks JC (2005) Location coding by opponent neural populations in the auditory cortex. PLoS Biol 3:e78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thornton C, Catley DM, Jordan C, Lehane JR, Royston D, Jones JG (1983) Enflurane anaesthesia causes graded changes in the brainstem and early cortical auditory evoked response in man. Br J Anaesth 55:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tietze G, Afontshenko V (1978) The acoustically evoked potentials in the case of stimulation by frequency modulation (FM) near the hearing threshold, compared with tone burst stimulation. Scand Audiol 7:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yingling CD, Nethercut GE (1983) Evoked responses to frequency shifted tones: tonotopic and contextual determinants. Int J Neurosci 22:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtolaryngologyUniversity of California at IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Center for Hearing ResearchUniversity of California at IrvineIrvineUSA
  3. 3.Department of Neurobiology and BehaviorUniversity of California at IrvineIrvineUSA
  4. 4.Department of Cognitive SciencesUniversity of California at IrvineIrvineUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of California at IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations