Advertisement

Age-Related Changes in Processing Simultaneous Amplitude Modulated Sounds Assessed Using Envelope Following Responses

  • Aravindakshan Parthasarathy
  • Jesyin Lai
  • Edward L. BartlettEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

Listening conditions in the real world involve segregating the stimuli of interest from competing auditory stimuli that differ in their sound level and spectral content. It is in these conditions of complex spectro-temporal processing that listeners with age-related hearing loss experience the most difficulties. Envelope following responses (EFRs) provide objective neurophysiological measures of auditory processing. EFRs were obtained to two simultaneous sinusoidally amplitude modulated (sAM) tones from young and aged Fischer-344 rats. One was held at a fixed suprathreshold sound level (sAM1FL) while the second varied in sound level (sAM2VL) and carrier frequency. EFR amplitudes to sAM1FL in the young decreased with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and this reduction was more pronounced when the sAM2VL carrier frequency was spectrally separated from sAM1FL. Aged animals showed similar trends, while having decreased overall response amplitudes compared to the young. These results were replicated using an established computational model of the auditory nerve. The trends observed in the EFRs were shown to be due to the contributions of the low-frequency tails of high-frequency neurons, rather than neurons tuned to the sAM1FL carrier frequency. Modeling changes in threshold and neural loss reproduced some of the changes seen with age, but accuracy improved when combined with an additional decrease representing synaptic loss of auditory nerve neurons. Sound segregation in this case derives primarily from peripheral processing, regardless of age. Contributions by more central neural mechanisms are likely to occur only at low SNRs.

Keywords

colliculus ASSR auditory nerve FFR EFR cochlear neuropathy synaptopathy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIDCD R01DC011580) to ELB.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Alain C, McDonald KL (2007) Age-related differences in neuromagnetic brain activity underlying concurrent sound perception. J Neurosci 27:1308–1314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N (2012) Aging affects neural precision of speech encoding. J Neurosci 32(41):14156–64. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2176-12.2012 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacon SP, Grantham DW (1989) Modulation masking—effects of modulation frequency, depth, and phase. J Acoust Soc Am 85:2575–2580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacon SP, Konrad DL (1993) Modulation detection interference under conditions favoring within- or across-channel processing. J Acoust Soc Am 93:1012–1022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bacon SP, Moore BCJ (1993) Modulation detection interference—some spectral effects. J Acoust Soc Am 93:3442–3453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bharadwaj HM, Verhulst S, Shaheen L, Liberman MC, Shinn-Cunningham BG (2014) Cochlear neuropathy and the coding of supra-threshold sound. Front Syst Neurosci 8:26. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00026 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bidet-Caulet A, Fischer C, Besle J, Aguera PE, Giard MH, Bertrand O (2007) Effects of selective attention on the electrophysiological representation of concurrent sounds in the human auditory cortex. J Neurosci 27:9252–9261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bregman AS (1990) Auditory scene analysis: the perceptual organization of sound. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchwald JS, Huang CM (1975) Far-field acoustic response—origins in cat. Science 189:382–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Buckiova D, Popelar J, Syka J (2007) Aging cochleas in the F344 rat: morphological and functional changes. Exp Gerontol 42:629–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Caspary DM, Ling L, Turner JG, Hughes LF (2008) Inhibitory neurotransmission, plasticity and aging in the mammalian central auditory system. J Exp Biol 211:1781–1791CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N (2010) The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology 47:236–246CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen GD, Li MN, Tanaka C, Bielefeld EC, Hu BH, Kermany MH, Salvi R, Henderson D (2009) Aging outer hair cells (OHCs) in the Fischer 344 rat cochlea: function and morphology. Hear Res 248:39–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Clinard CG, Tremblay KL, Krishnan AR (2010) Aging alters the perception and physiological representation of frequency: evidence from human frequency-following response recordings. Hear Res 264:48–55CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Cui YL, Holt AG, Lomax CA, Altschuler RA (2007) Deafness associated changes in two-pore domain potassium channels in the rat inferior colliculus. Neuroscience 149:421–433CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Dolphin WF (1995) The envelope following response to multiple tone pair stimuli. In: 16th International-Evoked-Audiometry-Study-Group Meeting. Lyon, France, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  17. Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Morgan DE (1984) Effects of age and mild hearing-loss on speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 76:87–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fitzgibbons PJ, Gordon-Salant S (1996) Auditory temporal processing in elderly listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 7:183–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Frisina DR, Frisina RD (1997) Speech recognition in noise and presbycusis: relations to possible neural mechanisms. Hear Res 106:95–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fullgrabe C, Moore BCJ, Stone MA (2015) Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Front Aging Neurosci 6:347. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00347 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenwood DD (1990) A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 87(6):2592–2605Google Scholar
  22. Grimault N, Micheyl C, Carlyon RP, Arthaud P, Collet L (2001) Perceptual auditory stream segregation of sequences of complex sounds in subjects with normal and impaired hearing. Br J Audiol 35:173–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall JW, Grose JH (1991) Some effects of auditory grouping factors on modulation detection interference (MDI). J Acoust Soc Am 90:3028–3035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hashimoto I, Ishiyama Y, Yoshimoto T, Nemoto S (1981) Brain-stem auditory-evoked potentials recorded directly from human brain-stem and thalamus. Brain 104:841–859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. He NJ, Mills JH, Dubno JR (2007) Frequency modulation detection: effects of age, psychophysical method, and modulation waveform. J Acoust Soc Am 122:467–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Herdman AT, Stapells DR (2003) Auditory steady-state response thresholds of adults with sensorineural hearing impairments. Int J Audiol 42:237–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hind SE, Haines-Bazrafshan R, Benton CL, Brassington W, Towle B, Moore DR (2011) Prevalence of clinical referrals having hearing thresholds within normal limits. Int J Audiol 50:708–716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnsrude IS, Mackey A, Hakyemez H, Alexander E, Trang HP, Carlyon RP (2013) Swinging at a cocktail party: voice familiarity aids speech perception in the presence of a competing voice. Psychol Sci 24:1995–2004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. King A, Hopkins K, Plack CJ (2014) The effects of age and hearing loss on interaural phase difference discrimination. J Acoust Soc Am 135:342–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kiren T, Aoyagi M, Furuse H, Koike Y (1994) An experimental-study on the generator of amplitude-modulation following response. Acta Oto-Laryngologica 28–33Google Scholar
  31. Kujawa SG, Liberman MC (2015) Synaptopathy in the noise-exposed and aging cochlea: primary neural degeneration in acquired sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res 330:191–199. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.02.009
  32. Kuwada S, Anderson JS, Batra R, Fitzpatrick DC, Teissier N, D’Angelo WR (2002) Sources of the scalp-recorded amplitude-modulation following response. J Am Acad Audiol 13:188–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Liberman MC (1978) Auditory-nerve response from cats raised in a low-noise chamber. J Acoust Soc Am 63:442–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lins OG, Picton TW (1995) Auditory steady-state responses to multiple simultaneous stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 96:420–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McNerney KM, Burkard RF (2010) The effects of a second stimulus on the auditory steady state response (ASSR) from the inferior colliculus of the chinchilla. Int J Audiol 49:561–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mendoza L, Hall JW, Grose JH (1995) Within-channel and across-channel processes in modulation detection interference. J Acoust Soc Am 97:3072–3079CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Micheyl C, Bernstein JGW, Oxenham AJ (2006) Detection and F0 discrimination of harmonic complex tones in the presence of competing tones or noise. J Acoust Soc Am 120:1493–1505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Miko IJ, Sanes DH (2009) Transient gain adjustment in the inferior colliculus is serotonin- and calcium-dependent. Hear Res 251:39–50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Moore BCJ, Fullgrabe C, Stone MA (2010) Effect of spatial separation, extended bandwidth, and compression speed on intelligibility in a competing-speech task. J Acoust Soc Am 128:360–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Nakamoto KT, Shackleton TM, Palmer AR (2010) Responses in the inferior colliculus of the guinea pig to concurrent harmonic series and the effect of inactivation of descending controls. J Neurophys 103:2050–2061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nelson PC, Carney LH (2004) A phenomenological model of peripheral and central neural responses to amplitude-modulated tones. J Acoust Soc Am 116:2173–2186CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Parthasarathy A, Bartlett EL (2011) Age-related auditory deficits in temporal processing in F-344 rats. Neuroscience 192:619–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Parthasarathy A, Bartlett E (2012) Two-channel recording of auditory-evoked potentials to detect age-related deficits in temporal processing. Hear Res 289(1-2):52–62CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Parthasarathy A, Cunningham PA, Bartlett EL (2010) Age-related differences in auditory processing as assessed by amplitude-modulation following responses in quiet and in noise. Front Aging Neurosci 2:152. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2010.00152 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Parthasarathy A, Datta J, Torres JAL, Hopkins C, Bartlett EL (2014) Age-related changes in the relationship between auditory brainstem responses and envelope-following responses. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15:649–661CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Plyler PN, Fleck EL (2006) The effects of high-frequency amplification on the objective and subjective performance of hearing instrument users with varying degrees of high-frequency hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 49:616–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rabang CF, Parthasarathy A, Venkataraman Y, Fisher ZL, Gardner SM, Bartlett EL (2012) A computational model of inferior colliculus responses to amplitude modulated sounds in young and aged rats. Front Neural Circuits 6:77. doi: 10.3389/fncir.2012.00077 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Ross B, Draganova R, Picton TW, Pantev C (2003) Frequency specificity of 40-Hz auditory steady-state responses. Hear Res 186:57–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruggles D, Bharadwaj H, Shinn-Cunningham BG (2012) Why middle-aged listeners have trouble hearing in everyday settings. Curr Biol 22:1417–1422CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmiedt RA (1989) Spontaneous rates, thresholds and tuning of auditory-nerve fibers in the gerbil—comparisons to cat data. Hear Res 42:23–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmiedt RA, Mills JH, Boettcher FA (1996) Age-related loss of activity of auditory-nerve fibers. J Neurophys 76:2799–2803Google Scholar
  52. Sergeyenko Y, Lall K, Liberman MC, Kujawa SG (2013) Age-related cochlear synaptopathy: an early-onset contributor to auditory functional decline. J Neurosci 33:13686–13694CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Shaheen LA, Valero MD, Liberman MC (2015) Towards a diagnosis of cochlear neuropathy with envelope following responses. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 16(6):727–45. doi: 10.1007/s10162-015-0539-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Trujillo M, Razak KA (2013) Altered cortical spectrotemporal processing with age-related hearing loss. J Neurophys 110:2873–2886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner CW, Henry BA (2002) Benefits of amplification for speech recognition in background noise. J Acoust Soc Am 112:1675–1680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Yost WA, Sheft S (1994) Modulation detection interference—across-frequency processing and auditory grouping. Hear Res 79:48–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Yost WA, Sheft S, Opie J (1989) Modulation interference in detection and discrimination of amplitude-modulation. J Acoust Soc Am 86:2138–2147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Zilany MSA, Bruce IC, Nelson PC, Carney LH (2009) A phenomenological model of the synapse between the inner hair cell and auditory nerve: long-term adaptation with power-law dynamics. J Acoust Soc Am 126:2390–2412CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Zilany MSA, Bruce IC, Carney LH (2014) Updated parameters and expanded simulation options for a model of the auditory periphery. J Acoust Soc Am 135:283–286CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aravindakshan Parthasarathy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jesyin Lai
    • 1
  • Edward L. Bartlett
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University Interdisciplinary Life Sciences Program, and the Weldon School of Biomedical EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Eaton-Peabody Labs, Massachusetts Eye and Ear InfirmaryHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations