Cochlear, brainstem, and psychophysical responses show spectrotemporal tradeoff in human auditory processing

Auditory filter theory posits a tradeoff in time–frequency analysis: high temporal precision is achievable only at the expense of poorer frequency resolution and vice versa. Here, we examined the hierarchy of brain mechanisms of these spectrotemporal tradeoffs through a series of physiological and behavioral measures aimed to tap temporal and spectral acuity at different levels of the auditory neuroaxis (cochlea→brainstem→percept). Cochlear and behavioral frequency selectivity was measured by stimulus–frequency otoacoustic emissions (SFOAE) and psychophysical tuning curves; temporal acuity was measured physiologically and behaviorally by paired click recovery of auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) and gap detection thresholds (GDTs), respectively. Comparison of physiological and behavioral estimates of temporal acuity and frequency tuning showed high consistency between measurement domains with temporal thresholds of ∼3–4 ms and filter tuning Q3≈10 across brain and behavioral measures. Cochlear SFOAE estimates of tuning inversely predicted listeners’ temporal acuity estimated from both brainstem ABRs and behavioral GDTs. The high predictive power of cochlear responses on temporal thresholds and similarity between time–frequency tradeoffs measured at progressively higher levels of the processing hierarchy (brainstem, behavior) suggest that the temporal resolution of human hearing established in the cochlea might be inherited at progressively higher levels of the hearing pathway.

[1]  C. Köppl Phase Locking to High Frequencies in the Auditory Nerve and Cochlear Nucleus Magnocellularis of the Barn Owl, Tyto alba , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[2]  J. Guinan,et al.  Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: a taxonomy for mammalian OAEs. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Recovery of human compound action potential using a paired-click stimulation paradigm , 2005, Hearing Research.

[4]  Christopher A Shera,et al.  Revised estimates of human cochlear tuning from otoacoustic and behavioral measurements , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  S Buus,et al.  Temporal gap detection in sensorineural and simulated hearing impairments. , 1984, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  P. Fitzgibbons,et al.  Gap detection in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  Gavin M. Bidelman,et al.  Spectrotemporal resolution tradeoff in auditory processing as revealed by human auditory brainstem responses and psychophysical indices , 2014, Neuroscience Letters.

[8]  Gavin M. Bidelman,et al.  PsyAcoustX: A flexible MATLAB® package for psychoacoustics research , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[9]  M. Heinz,et al.  Noise-induced hearing loss increases the temporal precision of complex envelope coding by auditory-nerve fibers , 2014, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[10]  R. Cook Influential Observations in Linear Regression , 1979 .

[11]  H. Duifhuis Consequences of peripheral frequency selectivity for nonsimultaneous masking. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Gavin M Bidelman,et al.  Psychophysical auditory filter estimates reveal sharper cochlear tuning in musicians. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Torsten Dau,et al.  Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  Time for analysis , 2002, Nature.

[15]  B C Moore,et al.  Detection of temporal gaps in sinusoids: effects of frequency and level. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Gavin M. Bidelman,et al.  Songbirds tradeoff auditory frequency resolution and temporal resolution , 2011, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[17]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

[18]  Pamela Souza,et al.  Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning in Humans: Comparison to Behavioral Tuning , 2013, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[19]  M. van der Schoot,et al.  The developmental onset of symbolic approximation: beyond nonsymbolic representations, the language of numbers matters , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[20]  C. Wilson,et al.  Spontaneous firing patterns and axonal projections of single corticostriatal neurons in the rat medial agranular cortex. , 1994, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  Development of a fast method for determining psychophysical tuning curves. , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[22]  D O Kim,et al.  Responses of auditory nerve fibers of the unanesthetized decerebrate cat to click pairs as simulated echoes. , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  J. Mills,et al.  Auditory brainstem responses in younger and older adults for broadband noises separated by a silent gap , 2001, Hearing Research.

[24]  Shaum P. Bhagat,et al.  Efferent-mediated reduction in cochlear gain does not alter tuning estimates from stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission group delays , 2014, Neuroscience Letters.

[25]  Gavin M. Bidelman,et al.  Musical experience sharpens human cochlear tuning , 2016, Hearing Research.

[26]  R. Llinás,et al.  Human oscillatory brain activity near 40 Hz coexists with cognitive temporal binding. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[27]  Samuel R. Atcherson,et al.  Auditory N1 Component to Gaps in Continuous Narrowband Noises , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[28]  M. Ruggero,et al.  Mechanical bases of frequency tuning and neural excitation at the base of the cochlea: comparison of basilar-membrane vibrations and auditory-nerve-fiber responses in chinchilla. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.