Louis Negri, Patrick Oliver, Rebecca Mitchell, Lavanya Sinha, Jacob Kearney, Dominic Saad, Fernando R Nodal, Victoria M Bajo
{"title":"人类操作性无声噪声间隙检测范式的优化","authors":"Louis Negri, Patrick Oliver, Rebecca Mitchell, Lavanya Sinha, Jacob Kearney, Dominic Saad, Fernando R Nodal, Victoria M Bajo","doi":"10.31083/j.jin2310183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the auditory domain, temporal resolution is the ability to respond to rapid changes in the envelope of a sound over time. Silent gap-in-noise detection tests assess temporal resolution. Whether temporal resolution is impaired in tinnitus and whether those tests are useful for identifying the condition is still debated. We have revisited these questions by assessing the silent gap-in-noise detection performance of human participants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were seventy-one young adults with normal hearing, separated into preliminary, tinnitus and matched-control groups. A preliminary group (n = 18) was used to optimise the silent gap-in-noise detection two-alternative forced-choice paradigm by examining the effect of the position and the salience of the gap. Temporal resolution was tested in case-control observational study of tinnitus (n = 20) and matched-control (n = 33) groups using the previously optimized silent gap-in-noise behavioral paradigm. These two groups were also tested using silent gap prepulse inhibition of the auditory startle reflex (GPIAS) and Auditory Brain Responses (ABRs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the preliminary group, reducing the predictability and saliency of the silent gap increased detection thresholds and reduced gap detection sensitivity (slope of the psychometric function). In the case-control study, tinnitus participants had higher gap detection thresholds than controls for narrowband noise stimuli centred at 2 and 8 kHz, with no differences in GPIAS or ABRs. In addition, ABR data showed latency differences across the different tinnitus subgroups stratified by subject severity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Operant silent gap-in-noise detection is impaired in tinnitus when the paradigm is optimized to reduce the predictability and saliency of the silent gap and to avoid the ceiling effect. Our behavioral paradigm can distinguish tinnitus and control groups suggesting that temporal resolution is impaired in tinnitus. However, in young adults with normal hearing, the paradigm is unable to objectively identify tinnitus at the individual level. The GPIAS paradigm was unable to differentiate the tinnitus and control groups, suggesting that operant, as opposed to reflexive, silent gap-in-noise detection is a more sensitive measure for objectively identifying tinnitus.</p>","PeriodicalId":16160,"journal":{"name":"Journal of integrative neuroscience","volume":"23 10","pages":"183"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimization of the Operant Silent Gap-in-Noise Detection Paradigm in Humans.\",\"authors\":\"Louis Negri, Patrick Oliver, Rebecca Mitchell, Lavanya Sinha, Jacob Kearney, Dominic Saad, Fernando R Nodal, Victoria M Bajo\",\"doi\":\"10.31083/j.jin2310183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the auditory domain, temporal resolution is the ability to respond to rapid changes in the envelope of a sound over time. Silent gap-in-noise detection tests assess temporal resolution. Whether temporal resolution is impaired in tinnitus and whether those tests are useful for identifying the condition is still debated. We have revisited these questions by assessing the silent gap-in-noise detection performance of human participants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were seventy-one young adults with normal hearing, separated into preliminary, tinnitus and matched-control groups. A preliminary group (n = 18) was used to optimise the silent gap-in-noise detection two-alternative forced-choice paradigm by examining the effect of the position and the salience of the gap. Temporal resolution was tested in case-control observational study of tinnitus (n = 20) and matched-control (n = 33) groups using the previously optimized silent gap-in-noise behavioral paradigm. These two groups were also tested using silent gap prepulse inhibition of the auditory startle reflex (GPIAS) and Auditory Brain Responses (ABRs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the preliminary group, reducing the predictability and saliency of the silent gap increased detection thresholds and reduced gap detection sensitivity (slope of the psychometric function). In the case-control study, tinnitus participants had higher gap detection thresholds than controls for narrowband noise stimuli centred at 2 and 8 kHz, with no differences in GPIAS or ABRs. In addition, ABR data showed latency differences across the different tinnitus subgroups stratified by subject severity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Operant silent gap-in-noise detection is impaired in tinnitus when the paradigm is optimized to reduce the predictability and saliency of the silent gap and to avoid the ceiling effect. Our behavioral paradigm can distinguish tinnitus and control groups suggesting that temporal resolution is impaired in tinnitus. However, in young adults with normal hearing, the paradigm is unable to objectively identify tinnitus at the individual level. The GPIAS paradigm was unable to differentiate the tinnitus and control groups, suggesting that operant, as opposed to reflexive, silent gap-in-noise detection is a more sensitive measure for objectively identifying tinnitus.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of integrative neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"23 10\",\"pages\":\"183\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of integrative neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.jin2310183\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of integrative neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.jin2310183","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在听觉领域,时间分辨率是指对声音包络随时间发生的快速变化做出反应的能力。无声噪声间隙检测测试可评估时间分辨率。耳鸣患者的时间分辨率是否受损,以及这些测试是否有助于识别耳鸣,目前仍存在争议。我们通过评估人类参与者的无声噪声间隙检测性能,重新探讨了这些问题:参与者为 71 名听力正常的年轻人,分为初步组、耳鸣组和匹配对照组。初试组(n = 18)通过考察间隙的位置和显著性的影响,优化了无声间隙噪声检测二选一强迫选择范式。在耳鸣病例对照观察研究(n = 20)和匹配对照组(n = 33)中,使用先前优化的无声噪声间隙行为范式测试了时间分辨率。这两组还使用听觉惊跳反射的无声间隙前脉冲抑制(GPIAS)和听觉脑反应(ABRs)进行了测试:在初步研究组中,降低无声间隙的可预测性和显著性会提高检测阈值并降低间隙检测灵敏度(心理测量函数斜率)。在病例对照研究中,与对照组相比,耳鸣参与者在以 2 和 8 kHz 为中心的窄带噪声刺激下的间隙检测阈值更高,但 GPIAS 或 ABR 没有差异。此外,根据受试者的严重程度,不同耳鸣亚组的 ABR 数据显示出潜伏期差异:结论:当对范式进行优化以降低无声间隙的可预测性和显著性并避免天花板效应时,耳鸣患者的操作性无声间隙噪声检测会受到损害。我们的行为范式可以区分耳鸣组和对照组,这表明耳鸣患者的时间分辨率受损。然而,对于听力正常的年轻人来说,该范式无法客观地从个体层面识别耳鸣。GPIAS范式无法区分耳鸣组和对照组,这表明操作性而非反射性的无声噪声间隙检测是客观识别耳鸣的更灵敏的方法。
Optimization of the Operant Silent Gap-in-Noise Detection Paradigm in Humans.
Background: In the auditory domain, temporal resolution is the ability to respond to rapid changes in the envelope of a sound over time. Silent gap-in-noise detection tests assess temporal resolution. Whether temporal resolution is impaired in tinnitus and whether those tests are useful for identifying the condition is still debated. We have revisited these questions by assessing the silent gap-in-noise detection performance of human participants.
Methods: Participants were seventy-one young adults with normal hearing, separated into preliminary, tinnitus and matched-control groups. A preliminary group (n = 18) was used to optimise the silent gap-in-noise detection two-alternative forced-choice paradigm by examining the effect of the position and the salience of the gap. Temporal resolution was tested in case-control observational study of tinnitus (n = 20) and matched-control (n = 33) groups using the previously optimized silent gap-in-noise behavioral paradigm. These two groups were also tested using silent gap prepulse inhibition of the auditory startle reflex (GPIAS) and Auditory Brain Responses (ABRs).
Results: In the preliminary group, reducing the predictability and saliency of the silent gap increased detection thresholds and reduced gap detection sensitivity (slope of the psychometric function). In the case-control study, tinnitus participants had higher gap detection thresholds than controls for narrowband noise stimuli centred at 2 and 8 kHz, with no differences in GPIAS or ABRs. In addition, ABR data showed latency differences across the different tinnitus subgroups stratified by subject severity.
Conclusions: Operant silent gap-in-noise detection is impaired in tinnitus when the paradigm is optimized to reduce the predictability and saliency of the silent gap and to avoid the ceiling effect. Our behavioral paradigm can distinguish tinnitus and control groups suggesting that temporal resolution is impaired in tinnitus. However, in young adults with normal hearing, the paradigm is unable to objectively identify tinnitus at the individual level. The GPIAS paradigm was unable to differentiate the tinnitus and control groups, suggesting that operant, as opposed to reflexive, silent gap-in-noise detection is a more sensitive measure for objectively identifying tinnitus.
期刊介绍:
JIN is an international peer-reviewed, open access journal. JIN publishes leading-edge research at the interface of theoretical and experimental neuroscience, focusing across hierarchical levels of brain organization to better understand how diverse functions are integrated. We encourage submissions from scientists of all specialties that relate to brain functioning.