Responses to Interaural Time Delay in Human Cortex

Kriegstein, Katharina von; Griffiths, Timothy D.; Thompson, Sarah K.; McAlpine, David

doi:10.1152/jn.90210.2008

Cited by 29 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with previous M/EEG studies, in which the MLR has shown sensitivity neither to ITDs (McEvoy et al 1994) nor to externalized percepts generated by head-related transfer functions (Junius et al 2007). It is also consistent with human fMRI data, which has shown that primary auditory cortex is highly sensitive to both ear of stimulation (Woods et al 2010;Stecker et al 2015;Gutschalk and Steinmann 2015) and interaural level differences (ILDs) Stecker et al 2015), but not ITD (von Kriegstein et al 2008;McLaughlin et al 2015). Although ITD sensitivity has been found in human auditory cortex, it is generally located in more posterolateral areas (von Kriegstein et al 2008;McLaughlin et al 2015) and in long-as opposed to middle-latency components of the AER (McEvoy et al 1993;Salminen et al 2009;Salminen et al 2010;Magezi and Krumbholz 2010;Gutschalk et al 2012) (for reviews, see Salminen et al 2012;Gutschalk 2014).…”

Section: Spatial Representation In the Auditory Pathwaysupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Although ITD sensitivity has been found in human auditory cortex, it is generally located in more posterolateral areas (von Kriegstein et al 2008;McLaughlin et al 2015) and in long-as opposed to middle-latency components of the AER (McEvoy et al 1993;Salminen et al 2009;Salminen et al 2010;Magezi and Krumbholz 2010;Gutschalk et al 2012) (for reviews, see Salminen et al 2012;Gutschalk 2014). In any case, the population-level representation of ITD at the level of the midbrain might be fundamentally different from that found in primary AC (Thompson et al 2006;von Kriegstein et al 2008;Belliveau et al 2014;Vonderschen and Wagner 2014;Yao et al 2015), though this is in need of further clarification.…”

Section: Spatial Representation In the Auditory Pathwaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In response to monaural stimulation, fMRI typically shows strong contralateral dominance, often double in amplitude for contralateral compared to ipsilateral stimuli (Scheffler et al 1998;Woldorff et al 1999;Jäncke et al 2002;Langers et al 2005;Gutschalk and Steinmann 2015). In response to ITD-lateralized sounds, fMRI shows little or no contralateral dominance (Woldorff et al 1999;von Kriegstein et al 2008;McLaughlin et al 2015). Given that the long-latency components of the AER are only slightly lateralized in response to either monaural or lateralized binaural stimuli, and if auditory fMRI activity is more strongly coupled to earlier, faster components of the AER (i.e., the MLR), this would suggest that the MLR might be strongly lateralized in response to monaural sounds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lateralization and Binaural Interaction of Middle-Latency and Late-Brainstem Components of the Auditory Evoked Response

Dykstra

Burchard

Starzynski

et al. 2016

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used magnetoencephalography to examine lateralization and binaural interaction of the middlelatency and late-brainstem components of the auditory evoked response(the MLR and SN10, respectively). Click stimuli were presented either monaurally, or binaurally with left-or right-leading interaural time differences (ITDs). While early MLR components, including the N19 and P30, were larger for monaural stimuli presented contralaterally (by approximately 30 and 36% in the left and right hemispheres, respectively), later components, including the N40 and P50, were larger ipsilaterally. In contrast, MLRs elicited by binaural clicks with left-or right-leading ITDs did not differ. Depending on filter settings, weak binaural interaction could be observed as early as the P13 but was clearly much larger for later components, beginning at the P30, indicating some degree of binaural linearity up to early stages of cortical processing. The SN10, an obscure late-brainstem component, was observed consistently in individuals and showed linear binaural additivity. The results indicate that while the MLR is lateralized in response to monaural stimuli-and not ITDs-this lateralization reverses from primarily contralateral to primarily ipsilateral as early as 40ms post stimulus and is never as large as that seen with fMRI.

show abstract

Section: Spatial Representation In the Auditory Pathwaysupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Spatial Representation In the Auditory Pathwaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lateralization and Binaural Interaction of Middle-Latency and Late-Brainstem Components of the Auditory Evoked Response

Dykstra

Burchard

Starzynski

et al. 2016

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This lies well within the range of latencies of P1-N1 potentials observed in EEG and MEG studies, where the main sources have been identified at the Planum temporale (PT) and the Heschl’s gyrus (HG) (Liégeois-Chauvel et al 1994; Yvert et al 2005; Ross et al 2007b; Yamashiro et al 2011). Similarly, von Kriegstein et al (2008)—using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)—have shown that ITDs of 500 μs produced stronger activation in the hemisphere (PT) contralateral to the lateralized location, whilst ITDs of 1500 μs produced similar activation in both hemispheres (PT and HG). This suggests that both PT and HG are the main sources generating the IPM-FR.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Neural Representation of Interaural Time Differences in Humans—an Objective Measure that Matches Behavioural Performance

Undurraga

Haywood

Marquardt

et al. 2016

JARO

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans, and many other species, exploit small differences in the timing of sounds at the two ears (interaural time difference, ITD) to locate their source and to enhance their detection in background noise. Despite their importance in everyday listening tasks, however, the neural representation of ITDs in human listeners remains poorly understood, and few studies have assessed ITD sensitivity to a similar resolution to that reported perceptually. Here, we report an objective measure of ITD sensitivity in electroencephalography (EEG) signals to abrupt modulations in the interaural phase of amplitude-modulated low-frequency tones. Specifically, we measured following responses to amplitude-modulated sinusoidal signals (520-Hz carrier) in which the stimulus phase at each ear was manipulated to produce discrete interaural phase modulations at minima in the modulation cycle—interaural phase modulation following responses (IPM-FRs). The depth of the interaural phase modulation (IPM) was defined by the sign and the magnitude of the interaural phase difference (IPD) transition which was symmetric around zero. Seven IPM depths were assessed over the range of ±22 ° to ±157 °, corresponding to ITDs largely within the range experienced by human listeners under natural listening conditions (120 to 841 μs). The magnitude of the IPM-FR was maximal for IPM depths in the range of ±67.6 ° to ±112.6 ° and correlated well with performance in a behavioural experiment in which listeners were required to discriminate sounds containing IPMs from those with only static IPDs. The IPM-FR provides a sensitive measure of binaural processing in the human brain and has a potential to assess temporal binaural processing.

show abstract

“…Importantly, contralateral sensitivity to ILD cues evident in the blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) signal represents binaural processes that cannot be explained by monaural intensity effects alone (15). As in the literature from animal models, reports of human cortical sensitivity to ITD have also been mixed, with some studies reporting moderate-strong contralateral dominance (16)(17)(18)(19), some weak contralateral dominance (13,14,20), and others a nonexistent sensitivity to ITD (21,22).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for cue-independent spatial representation in the human auditory cortex during active listening

Higgins

McLaughlin

Rinne

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few auditory functions are as important or as universal as the capacity for auditory spatial awareness (e.g., sound localization). That ability relies on sensitivity to acoustical cues-particularly interaural time and level differences (ITD and ILD)-that correlate with sound-source locations. Under nonspatial listening conditions, cortical sensitivity to ITD and ILD takes the form of broad contralaterally dominated response functions. It is unknown, however, whether that sensitivity reflects representations of the specific physical cues or a higher-order representation of auditory space (i.e., integrated cue processing), nor is it known whether responses to spatial cues are modulated by active spatial listening. To investigate, sensitivity to parametrically varied ITD or ILD cues was measured using fMRI during spatial and nonspatial listening tasks. Task type varied across blocks where targets were presented in one of three dimensions: auditory location, pitch, or visual brightness. Task effects were localized primarily to lateral posterior superior temporal gyrus (pSTG) and modulated binaural-cue response functions differently in the two hemispheres. Active spatial listening (location tasks) enhanced both contralateral and ipsilateral responses in the right hemisphere but maintained or enhanced contralateral dominance in the left hemisphere. Two observations suggest integrated processing of ITD and ILD. First, overlapping regions in medial pSTG exhibited significant sensitivity to both cues. Second, successful classification of multivoxel patterns was observed for both cue types and-criticallyfor cross-cue classification. Together, these results suggest a higherorder representation of auditory space in the human auditory cortex that at least partly integrates the specific underlying cues.auditory space | binaural cues | human auditory cortex | fMRI | sound localization A cross species, one of the most important functions of hearing is the capacity to localize and orient to sound sources throughout 360°of extrapersonal space. This function relies on the neural processing of a variety of acoustical cues, but particularly on interaural time (ITD) and level differences (ILD) that convey sound-source directions in the horizontal dimension (azimuth). The acoustical basis of these cues is well understood: sound arrives earlier and with greater intensity at the ear nearest the source. The magnitudes of both cues depend systematically on azimuth angle, sound frequency, and head size/shape. Acoustic reflections from surfaces of the outer ear and of the listening room further alter these cues in a frequency-and cuespecific manner.In the absence of echoes and reverberation, ITD and ILD cues vary more or less in parallel (i.e., redundantly) and human listeners appear to use the cues interchangeably. However, ITD is the psychophysically dominant cue for localization when sounds contain energy below ∼1.5 kHz (1-3). For higher-frequency sounds, ILD tends to dominate, although ITD carried by fluctuations in the sound envelope a...

show abstract

Responses to Interaural Time Delay in Human Cortex

Cited by 29 publications

References 37 publications

Lateralization and Binaural Interaction of Middle-Latency and Late-Brainstem Components of the Auditory Evoked Response

Lateralization and Binaural Interaction of Middle-Latency and Late-Brainstem Components of the Auditory Evoked Response

Neural Representation of Interaural Time Differences in Humans—an Objective Measure that Matches Behavioural Performance

Evidence for cue-independent spatial representation in the human auditory cortex during active listening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About