The functional role of the low-frequency range (<3 kHz) in barn owl hearing is not well understood. Here, it was tested whether cochlear delays could explain the representation of interaural time difference (ITD) in this frequency range. Recordings were obtained from neurons in the core of the central nucleus of the inferior colliculus. The response of these neurons varied with the ITD of the stimulus. The response peak shared by all neurons in a dorsoventral penetration was called the array-specific ITD and served as criterion for the representation of a given ITD in a neuron. Array-specific ITDs were widely distributed. Isolevel frequency response functions obtained with binaural, contralateral, and ispilateral stimulation exhibited a clear response peak and the accompanying frequency was called the best frequency. The data were tested with respect to predictions of a model, the stereausis model, assuming cochlear delays as source for the best ITD of a neuron. According to this model, different cochlear delays determined by mismatches between the ipsilateral and contralateral best frequencies are the source for the ITD in a binaural neuron. The mismatch should depend on the best frequency and the best ITD. The predictions of the stereausis model were not fulfilled in the low best-frequency neurons analyzed here. It is concluded that cochlear delays are not responsible for the representation of best ITD in the barn owl.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00501.2010 | DOI Listing |
HNO
January 2025
Deutsches Hörzentrum der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover, Karl-Wiechert-Allee 3, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland.
Treatment of patients with severe hearing loss or deafness using cochlear implants (CI) is nowadays clinical routine. In the Hannover Medical School alone, more than 500 patients are treated with CI annually, meaning that the pool of patients with CI increases significantly each year. Worldwide, there are over 1 million patients with a CI system; in Germany the figure is estimated at over 60,000.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Assoc Res Otolaryngol
January 2025
The Bionics Institute, 384-388 Albert St, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia.
Purpose: Variations in neural survival along the cochlear implant electrode array leads to off-place listening, resulting in poorer speech understanding outcomes for recipients. Therefore, it is important to develop and compare clinically viable tests to identify these patient-specific intra-cochlear neural differences.
Methods: Nineteen experienced cochlear implant recipients (9 males and 10 females) were recruited for this study.
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol
January 2025
World Health Organization, Department of Noncommunicable Diseases, Rehabilitation and Disability, Disability and Rehabilitation Unit, Geneva, Switzerland.
Objective: This review aims to analyse the implications of the World Health Organization's 2021 world report on hearing, with a particular focus on the cochlear implant field. The objective is to understand the challenges and opportunities highlighted in the report and propose viable solutions for effective implementation within the cochlear implant community.
Methods: Following the release of the World Health Organization's world report on hearing, cochlear implant professionals explored and discussed the implications of the report with examples from various countries to understand the disparities in access, reimbursement policies, and social stigma associated with hearing loss.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
January 2025
Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
bioRxiv
December 2024
Kresge Hearing Research Institute, Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Unlabelled: Auditory masking-the interference of the encoding and processing of an acoustic stimulus imposed by one or more competing stimuli-is nearly omnipresent in daily life, and presents a critical barrier to many listeners, including people with hearing loss, users of hearing aids and cochlear implants, and people with auditory processing disorders. The perceptual aspects of masking have been actively studied for several decades, and particular emphasis has been placed on masking of speech by other speech sounds. The neural effects of such masking, especially at the subcortical level, have been much less studied, in large part due to the technical limitations of making such measurements.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!