Frequency selectivity in macaque monkeys measured using a notched-noise method

Abstract

The auditory system is thought to process complex sounds through overlapping bandpass filters. Frequency selectivity as estimated by auditory filters has been well quantified in humans and other mammalian species using behavioral and physiological methodologies, but little work has been done to examine frequency selectivity in nonhuman primates. In particular, knowledge of macaque frequency selectivity would help address the recent controversy over the sharpness of cochlear tuning in humans relative to other animal species. The purpose of our study was to investigate the frequency selectivity of macaque monkeys using a notched-noise paradigm. Four macaques were trained to detect tones in noises that were spectrally notched symmetrically and asymmetrically around the tone frequency. Masked tone thresholds decreased with increasing notch width. Auditory filter shapes were estimated using a rounded exponential function. Macaque auditory filters were symmetric at low noise levels and broader and more asymmetric at higher noise levels with broader low-frequency and steeper high-frequency tails. Macaque filter bandwidths (BW3dB) increased with increasing center frequency, similar to humans and other species. Estimates of equivalent rectangular bandwidth (ERB) and filter quality factor (Q) suggest macaque filters are broader than human filters. These data shed further light on frequency selectivity across species and serve as a baseline for studies of neuronal frequency selectivity and frequency selectivity in subjects with hearing loss.

High-resolution frequency tuning but not temporal coding in the human cochlea

“…From these measurements, the authors propose that human frequency tuning is sharper than in guinea pig and chinchilla but is rather similar to that in cat, which is not what we find when the same CAP-Q 10 measurements are obtained in these different species (Figs 1 and 2 and [ 22 ]). Recent behavioral data suggest that frequency tuning in monkeys is not as sharp as in humans [ 25 , 26 ], consistent with our physiological data ( Fig 1 ).…”

Mammalian behavior and physiology converge to confirm sharper cochlear tuning in humans

“…However, some modest discrepancies remain that are important to address. Tuning estimates obtained here using simultaneous masking are broader than those from ANF and forward-masked methods, consistent with studies in humans ( 22 ) and macaque ( 28 , 30 ). However, other published data suggest either a closer correspondence of simultaneous masking and auditory nerve tuning ( 31 ) or even little difference compared with humans ( 32 ).…”

Effects of tone duration on three psychophysical measures of temporal integration in rhesus macaques

“…All of these measures confirmed normal hearing status as reported in our previous work (Bohlen et al 2014, Dylla et al 2013, Hauser et al 2018. These monkeys also had normal frequency selectivity as reported in our previous publications (Burton et al, 2018).…”

“…Nonhuman primates, due to their phylogenetic similarity with humans, have long been used as an animal model for human auditory perception (e.g., Frequency resolution/selectivity: Gourevitch, 1970;Serafin et al, 1982;Osmanski et al 2016;Burton et al 2018;Temporal resolution: Bohlen et al, 2014;Stream segregation: Christison-Lagay & Cohen, 2014;Speech sound discrimination: Sinnott et al, 1976;Detection in noise: Christison-Lagay et al 2017;Dylla et al, 2013;AM detection: O'Connor et al, 2011;Localization: Recanzone et al, 2000;Spatial resolution: Rocchi et al, 2017). And more recently, there has been a re-establishment of a nonhuman primate model of noise-induced hearing loss (Burton et al, 2019(Burton et al, , 2020Hauser et al, 2018;Valero et al, 2017) to investigate the histopathological, anatomical, and physiological correlates of perceptual deficits associated with NIHL.…”