The masking level difference in chinchilla auditory cortex. Effects of inner hair cell loss

Hearing Research

Volumn 178, Issue 1-2, 2003, Pages 12-26

  Guo, Yuqing ^a   Burkard, Robert ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory cortex; Carboplatin; Chinchilla; Inner hair cell loss; Masking level difference

Indexed keywords

CARBOPLATIN; TUNGSTEN;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY CORTEX; AUDITORY MASKING; CELL LOSS; CHINCHILLA; COCHLEA; CONTROLLED STUDY; EAR; ELECTROCOCHLEOGRAPHY; ELECTRODE; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; HAIR CELL; HEARING; LATENT PERIOD; MASKING; NOISE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0037381542     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-5955(03)00023-6     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Benson D., Teas D. Single unit study of binaural interaction in the auditory cortex of the chinchilla. Brain Res. 103:1976;313-338.
2. Blodgett H., Jeffress L., Taylor R. Relation of masked threshold to signal duration for various interaural phase combinations. Am. J. Physiol. 71:1958;283-290.
3. Burkard R., Trautwein P., Salvi R. The effects of click level, click rate and level of background masking noise on the inferior colliculus potential (ICP) in the normal and carboplatin-treated chinchilla. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102:1997;3620-3627.
4. Edwards J., Henderson D., Nodar R. The averaged evoked response threshold to monaural and binaural masked signals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 49:1971;112.
5. Fowler C., Mikami C. The late auditory evoked potential masking-level difference as a function of noise level. J. Speech Hear. Res. 35:1992;216-221.
6. Fowler C., Mikami C. Effects of noise bandwidth on the late-component masking level difference. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 84:1992;157-163.
7. Fowler C., Mikami C. Phase effects on the middle and late auditory evoked potentials. J. Am. Acad. Audiol. 7:1996;23-30.
8. Galambos R., Makeig S. Physiological studies of central masking in man. II: Tonepip SSRs and the masking level difference. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 92:1992;2691-2697.
9. Green, D., 1976. An Introduction to Hearing. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
10. Greenwood D. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species - 29 years later. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87:1990;2592-2604.
11. Hall J., Derlacki E. Binaural hearing after middle ear surgery. Masking-level difference for interaural time and amplitude cues. Audiology. 27:1988;89-98.
12. Hall J., Grose J. The effect of otitis media with effusion on the masking-level difference and the auditory brainstem response. J. Speech Hear. Res. 36:1993;210-217.
13. Hall J., Harvey A. The binaural masking level difference as a function of frequency, masker level and masking bandwidth in normal-hearing and hearing- impaired listeners. Audiology. 24:1985;25-31.
14. Jardine, D., Sun, W., Ding, D., Salvi, R., 2001. How many inner hair cells do we need to hear? Presented at the 2001 meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, St. Petersburg Beach, FL.
15. Jerger J., Brown D., Smith S. Effect of peripheral hearing loss on the masking level difference. Arch. Otolaryngol. 110:1984;290-296.
16. Kevanishvili Z., Lagidze Z. Masking level difference: an electrophysiological approach. Scand. Audiol. 16:1987;3-11.
17. Kuwada S., Anderson J., Batra R., Fitzpatrick D., Teissier N., D'Angelo W. Sources of the scalp-recorded amplitude-modulation following response. J. Am. Audiol. 13:2002;188-204.
18. Lynn G.E., Gilroy J., Taylor P., Leiser R. Binaural masking-level differences in neurological disorders. Arch. Otolaryngol. 107:1981;357-362.
19. McFadden, D., 1975. Masking and the binaural system. In: Tower, D. (Ed.) The Nervous System: Vol. 3: Human Communication and Its Disorders. Raven Press, New York.
20. Møller, A., 1994. Neural generators of auditory evoked potentials. In: Jacobson, J. (Ed.), Principles and Applications in Auditory Evoked Potentials. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
21. Phillips D., Hall S., Guo Y., Burkard R. Sensitivity of unanesthetized chinchilla auditory system to noise burst onset, and the effects of carboplatin. Hear. Res. 155:2001;133-142.
22. Qiu C., Salvi R., Ding D., Burkard R. Inner hair cell loss leads to enhanced response amplitudes in the auditory cortex of unanesthetized chinchillas: Evidence for increased system gain. Hear. Res. 139:2000;153-171.
23. Quaranta A., Cervellera G. Masking level difference in normal and pathological ears. Audiology. 13:1974;428-431.
24. Schuknecht, H., 1993. Pathology of the Ear. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, PA.
25. Snyder D., Salvi R. A novel chinchilla restraint device. Lab. Anim. 23:1994;42-44.
26. Szalda, K., Flint, D., Guo, Y., Burkard, R., 2001. The effects of masking noise on evoked potentials from the inferior colliculus and auditory cortex of the chinchilla pre- and post-carboplatin. Presented at the 2001 meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, St. Petersburg Beach, FL.
27. Takeno S., Harrison R., Mount R., Wake M., Harada Y. Induction of selective inner hair cell damage by carboplatin. Scann. Microsc. 8:1994;97-106.
28. Townsend T., Goldstein D. Suprathreshold binaural unmasking. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 51:1972;621-624.
29. Wakeford O., Robinson D. Detection of binaurally masked tones by the cat. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 56:1974;952-956.
30. Wilson R., Fowler C. Effects of signal duration on the 500-Hz masking level difference. Scand. Audiol. 15:1986;209-215.
31. Yonovitz A., Thompson C., Lozar J. Masking level differences: Auditory evoked responses with homophasic and antiphasic signal and noise. J. Speech Hear. Res. 22:1979;403-411.