Responses of Dorsal Cochlear Nucleus Neurons to Signals in the Presence of Modulated Maskers

The detection of a signal in noise is enhanced when the masking noise is coherently modulated over a wide range of frequencies. This phenomenon, known as comodulation masking release (CMR), has been attributed to across-channel processing; however, the relative contribution of different stages in the auditory system to such across-channel processing is unknown. It has been hypothesized that wideband or lateral inhibition may underlie a physiological correlate of CMR. To further test this hypothesis, we have measured the responses of single units from the dorsal cochlear nucleus in which wideband inhibition is particularly pronounced. Using a sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tone at the best frequency of each unit as a masker, a pure-tone signal was added in the dips of the masker modulation. Flanking bands (FBs, also amplitude-modulated pure tones) were positioned to fall within the inhibitory sidebands of the receptive field of the unit. The FBs were either in phase (comodulated) or out of phase (codeviant) with the on-frequency masker. For the majority of units, the addition of the comodulated FBs produced a strong reduction in the response to the masker modulation, making the signal more salient in the post stimulus time histograms. The change in spike rate in response to the signal between the masker and signal-plus-masker conditions was greatest for the comodulated condition for 29 of 45 units. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that wideband inhibition may play a role in across-channel processing at an early stage in the auditory pathway.

[1]  K. A. Davis,et al.  Single-unit responses in the inferior colliculus of decerebrate cats. I. Classification based on frequency response maps. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  B A Wright,et al.  Comodulation masking release for single and multiple rates of envelope fluctuation. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Ray Meddis,et al.  A model of signal processing in the cochlear nucleus: comodulation masking release , 2002 .

[4]  B C Moore,et al.  Across-channel masking and comodulation masking release. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  J H Grose,et al.  Comodulation masking release using SAM tonal complex maskers: effects of modulation depth and signal position. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  M L Hicks,et al.  Some factors influencing comodulation masking release and across-channel masking. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R Delahaye Across-channel effects on masked signal thresholds in hearing. , 1999 .

[8]  Eric D. Young,et al.  Identification of response properties of ascending axons from dorsal cochlear nucleus , 1980, Brain Research.

[9]  B C Moore,et al.  Comodulation masking release (CMR): effects of signal frequency, flanking-band frequency, masker bandwidth, flanking-band level, and monotic versus dichotic presentation of the flanking band. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  E. Young,et al.  Responses to tones and noise of single cells in dorsal cochlear nucleus of unanesthetized cats. , 1976, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  D. McFadden,et al.  Comodulation masking release: effects of varying the level, duration, and time delay of the cue band. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  K. A. Davis,et al.  Response properties of units in the dorsal cochlear nucleus of unanesthetized decerebrate gerbil. , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  W. S. Rhode,et al.  Lateral suppression and inhibition in the cochlear nucleus of the cat. , 1994, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  E D Young,et al.  Organization of dorsal cochlear nucleus type IV unit response maps and their relationship to activation by bandlimited noise. , 1991, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  E D Young,et al.  Excitatory/inhibitory response types in the cochlear nucleus: relationships to discharge patterns and responses to electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. , 1985, Journal of neurophysiology.

[16]  K. A. Davis,et al.  Circuitry and Function of the Dorsal Cochlear Nucleus , 2002 .

[17]  A R Palmer,et al.  Level dependence of cochlear nucleus onset unit responses and facilitation by second tones or broadband noise. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  A. Ainsworth,et al.  Glass-coated platinum-plated tungsten microelectrodes , 1972, Medical and biological engineering.

[19]  B C Moore,et al.  Comodulation masking release as a function of level. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  K. A. Davis Evidence of a functionally segregated pathway from dorsal cochlear nucleus to inferior colliculus. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  W. S. Rhode,et al.  Physiological study of neurons in the dorsal and posteroventral cochlear nucleus of the unanesthetized cat. , 1987, Journal of neurophysiology.

[22]  Joseph W. Hall,et al.  Detection in noise by spectro-temporal pattern analysis. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  W. Shofner,et al.  Regularity and latency of units in ventral cochlear nucleus: implications for unit classification and generation of response properties. , 1988, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  G. Klump,et al.  Signal detection in amplitude‐modulated maskers. I. Behavioural auditory thresholds in a songbird , 2001, The European journal of neuroscience.

[25]  Daniel Pressnitzer,et al.  The psychophysics and physiology of comodulation masking release , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[26]  S. Hofer,et al.  Within- and Across-Channel Processing in Auditory Masking: A Physiological Study in the Songbird Forebrain , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  B C Moore,et al.  Comodulation masking release for various monaural and binaural combinations of the signal, on-frequency, and flanking bands. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  W. S. Rhode,et al.  Vertical cell responses to sound in cat dorsal cochlear nucleus. , 1999, Journal of Neurophysiology.

[29]  I. Nelken,et al.  Two separate inhibitory mechanisms shape the responses of dorsal cochlear nucleus type IV units to narrowband and wideband stimuli. , 1994, Journal of neurophysiology.

[30]  H. Voigt,et al.  Response map properties of units in the dorsal cochlear nucleus of barbiturate-anesthetized gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus) , 1997, Hearing Research.

[31]  H. Voigt,et al.  Cross-correlation analysis of inhibitory interactions in dorsal cochlear nucleus. , 1990, Journal of neurophysiology.

[32]  D A Godfrey,et al.  Single unit activity in the dorsal cochlear nucleus of the cat , 1975, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[33]  A. Nieder,et al.  Signal detection in amplitude‐modulated maskers. II. Processing in the songbird's auditory forebrain , 2001, The European journal of neuroscience.

[34]  Ray Meddis,et al.  Physiological Correlates of Comodulation Masking Release in the Mammalian Ventral Cochlear Nucleus , 2001, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[35]  E. F. Evans,et al.  The responses of single neurones in the cochlear nucleus of the cat as a function of their location and the anaesthetic state , 1973, Experimental Brain Research.

[36]  J. Hall,et al.  The effect of across-frequency differences in masking level on spectro-temporal pattern analysis. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  Israel Nelken,et al.  Responses of auditory-cortex neurons to structural features of natural sounds , 1999, Nature.

[38]  W. S. Rhode,et al.  Encoding timing and intensity in the ventral cochlear nucleus of the cat. , 1986, Journal of neurophysiology.

[39]  I. Winter,et al.  Temporal and mean rate discharge patterns of single units in the dorsal cochlear nucleus of the anesthetized guinea pig. , 1996, Journal of neurophysiology.

[40]  W. S. Rhode,et al.  Physiological response properties of cells labeled intracellularly with horseradish peroxidase in cat dorsal cochlear nucleus , 1983, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[41]  Manuel S. Malmierca,et al.  Iontophoresis In Vivo Demonstrates a Key Role for GABAA and Glycinergic Inhibition in Shaping Frequency Response Areas in the Inferior Colliculus of Guinea Pig , 2001, The Journal of Neuroscience.