Display options
Cite
Kennedy AE, Kaf WA, Ferraro JA, et al. Human Summating Potential Using Continuous Loop Averaging Deconvolution: Response Amplitudes Vary with Tone Burst Repetition Rate and Duration. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:429doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00429.
Kennedy, A. E., Kaf, W. A., Ferraro, J. A., Delgado, R. E., & Lichtenhan, J. T. (2017). Human Summating Potential Using Continuous Loop Averaging Deconvolution: Response Amplitudes Vary with Tone Burst Repetition Rate and Duration. Frontiers in neuroscience, 11429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00429
Kennedy, Alana E, et al. "Human Summating Potential Using Continuous Loop Averaging Deconvolution: Response Amplitudes Vary with Tone Burst Repetition Rate and Duration." Frontiers in neuroscience vol. 11 (2017): 429. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00429
Kennedy AE, Kaf WA, Ferraro JA, Delgado RE, Lichtenhan JT. Human Summating Potential Using Continuous Loop Averaging Deconvolution: Response Amplitudes Vary with Tone Burst Repetition Rate and Duration. Front Neurosci. 2017 Jul 27;11:429. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00429. eCollection 2017. PMID: 28798660; PMCID: PMC5529347.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Neurosci. 2017 Jul 27;11:429. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00429. eCollection 2017.

Human Summating Potential Using Continuous Loop Averaging Deconvolution: Response Amplitudes Vary with Tone Burst Repetition Rate and Duration.

Frontiers in neuroscience

Alana E Kennedy, Wafaa A Kaf, John A Ferraro, Rafael E Delgado, Jeffery T Lichtenhan

Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State UniversitySpringfield, MO, United States.
  2. Department of Hearing and Speech, University of Kansas Medical CenterKansas City, KS, United States.
  3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of MiamiCoral Gables, FL, United States.
  4. Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of MedicineSt. Louis, MO, United States.

PMID: 28798660 PMCID: PMC5529347 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00429

Abstract

Electrocochleography (ECochG) to high repetition rate tone bursts may have advantages over ECochG to clicks with standard slow rates. Tone burst stimuli presented at a high repetition rate may enhance summating potential (SP) measurements by reducing neural contributions resulting from neural adaptation to high stimulus repetition rates. To allow for the analysis of the complex ECochG responses to high rates, we deconvolved responses using the Continuous Loop Averaging Deconvolution (CLAD) technique. We examined the effect of high stimulus repetition rate and stimulus duration on SP amplitude measurements made with extratympanic ECochG to tone bursts in 20 adult females with normal hearing. We used 500 and 2,000 Hz tone bursts of various stimulus durations (12, 6, 3 ms) and repetition rates (five rates ranging from 7.1 to 234.38/s). A within-subject repeated measures (rate x duration) analysis of variance was conducted. We found that, for both 500 and 2,000 Hz stimuli, the mean deconvolved SP amplitudes were larger at faster repetition rates (58.59 and 97.66/s) compared to slower repetition rates (7.1 and 19.53/s), and larger at shorter stimulus duration compared longer stimulus duration. Our concluding hypothesis is that large SP amplitude to short duration stimuli may originate primarily from neural excitation, and large SP amplitudes to long duration, fast repetition rate stimuli may originate from hair cell responses. While the hair cell or neural origins of the SP to various stimulus parameters remains to be validated, our results nevertheless provide normative data as a step toward applying the CLAD technique to understanding diseased ears.

Keywords: auditory nerve; cochlea; continuous loop averaging deconvolution; high stimulus rate; phase locking; tone burst

References

  1. Am J Audiol. 1999 Jun;8(1):21-8 - PubMed
  2. Int J Audiol. 2002 Dec;41(8):509-17 - PubMed
  3. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1997;526:14-20 - PubMed
  4. Laryngoscope. 1992 Jun;102(6):614-22 - PubMed
  5. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995 Jan;121(1):44-55 - PubMed
  6. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1983 Feb;16(1):69-82 - PubMed
  7. J Am Acad Audiol. 1994 Jan;5(1):24-9 - PubMed
  8. Hear Res. 2001 Feb;152(1-2):1-9 - PubMed
  9. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006 Jan;17(1):45-68 - PubMed
  10. Acta Otolaryngol. 2000 Jun;120(4):480-3 - PubMed
  11. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Mar;115(3):1242-51 - PubMed
  12. Otol Neurotol. 2005 Jan;26(1):74-81 - PubMed
  13. Audiol Neurootol. 1997 Sep-Oct;2(5):241-56 - PubMed
  14. Acta Otolaryngol. 2010;130(1):95-101 - PubMed
  15. J Neurosci Methods. 2016 Nov 1;273:201-209 - PubMed
  16. Int J Audiol. 2009 Nov;48(11):811-9 - PubMed
  17. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 2009 Feb;(560):38-42 - PubMed
  18. J Acoust Soc Am. 2015 Nov;138(5):2957-63 - PubMed
  19. Ear Hear. 2013 Jan-Feb;34(1):42-51 - PubMed
  20. Ear Hear. 2016 Jul-Aug;37(4):e273-5 - PubMed
  21. J Am Acad Audiol. 1994 Jan;5(1):17-23 - PubMed
  22. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 2000;543:127-9 - PubMed
  23. Ear Hear. 2017 Mar/Apr;38(2):244-254 - PubMed
  24. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014 Jun;15(3):395-411 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support