Cortical Processing Related to Intensity of a Modulated Noise Stimulus-a Functional Near-Infrared Study

Stefan Weder, Xin Zhou, Mehrnaz Shoushtarian, Hamish Innes-Brown, Colette McKay, Stefan Weder, Xin Zhou, Mehrnaz Shoushtarian, Hamish Innes-Brown, Colette McKay

Abstract

Sound intensity is a key feature of auditory signals. A profound understanding of cortical processing of this feature is therefore highly desirable. This study investigates whether cortical functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) signals reflect sound intensity changes and where on the brain cortex maximal intensity-dependent activations are located. The fNIRS technique is particularly suitable for this kind of hearing study, as it runs silently. Twenty-three normal hearing subjects were included and actively participated in a counterbalanced block design task. Four intensity levels of a modulated noise stimulus with long-term spectrum and modulation characteristics similar to speech were applied, evenly spaced from 15 to 90 dB SPL. Signals from auditory processing cortical fields were derived from a montage of 16 optodes on each side of the head. Results showed that fNIRS responses originating from auditory processing areas are highly dependent on sound intensity level: higher stimulation levels led to higher concentration changes. Caudal and rostral channels showed different waveform morphologies, reflecting specific cortical signal processing of the stimulus. Channels overlying the supramarginal and caudal superior temporal gyrus evoked a phasic response, whereas channels over Broca's area showed a broad tonic pattern. This data set can serve as a foundation for future auditory fNIRS research to develop the technique as a hearing assessment tool in the normal hearing and hearing-impaired populations.

Keywords: cortical responses; fNIRS; normal hearing listeners; sound intensity.

Conflict of interest statement

Stefan Weder: This research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), award number P2BSP3_161929.

Xin Zhou was supported by a Melbourne University International PhD Scholarship.

Hamish Innes-Brown was supported by a NHMRC early career fellowship.

Colette McKay was supported by a Veski Fellowship.

The Bionics Institute acknowledges the support it receives from the Victorian Government through its Operational Infrastructure Support Program.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
fNIRS montage: eight sources and eight detectors were placed on each side of the scalp (red circles = sources, blue circles = detectors), resulting in16 long channels per side. Above and near the primary auditory cortex channels were overlapping. Two short channels on each side (*) were used for short channel measurements
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Block design of the fNIRS experiment: four different intensity levels, i.e., 15, 40, 65 and 90 dB SPL, were presented in a counterbalanced order. Blocks were interleaved with resting periods between 25 and 35 s. Participants had to signal the end of a stimulus by a button press. b Each testing period (eight stimuli, approx. 7 min) lasted for approximately 7 min. Between testing periods, subjects were given a break of their own chosen duration. In total, each intensity level was repeated 10 times
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
a Time to button press in seconds. b Percentage of correct button presses for different intensity levels. For the lowest level (15 dB), participants pressed the button significantly later (***p < 0.001) and the percentage of recognized stimuli was much lower than for the higher-level stimuli
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Grand average channel data for HbO (a) and HbR (b) concentration changes. Channel numbers are delineated in the upper left corner of every plot. For additional spatial orientation, 10–20 positions are included in the plot. Responses to different intensity levels are color encoded. The blue box in the lower left corner delineates the scales of the x- and y-axis; dotted vertical lines correspond to the stimulus on- and off-set. Additionally, the grand averages of the two short channels are displayed on each side
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
a Based on the pattern of grand average data, four regions of interest were created for the left and right hemisphere. b Sensitivity maps using Montecarlo simulation display the cortical areas to which the different ROIs are sensitive (here only shown for the left side)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
fNIRS responses for ROIs in relation to different sound intensity levels, for HbO (a) and HbR (b), respectively. The blue box in the lower left corner delineates the scales of the x- and y-axis. The horizontal dashed line underneath each figure displays midpoints of moving windows (± 3 s, p ≤ 0.05) with significant effect of intensity level as calculated by Friedman’s test. The red cross points out the midpoint of the window with the highest chi-square statistics
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Boxplots showing the distribution of responses for every ROI and intensity level for the 6-s time window with the highest chi-square statistics. The red lines show the median responses (y-axis: delta concentration change in arbitrary units *10′−7). Above every panel, statistically significant post hoc comparisons are shown (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001)

References

    1. Aasted CM, Yücel MA, Cooper RJ, Dubb J, Tsuzuki D, Becerra L, Petkov MP, Borsook D, Dan I, Boas DA. Anatomical guidance for functional near-infrared spectroscopy: AtlasViewer tutorial. Neurophotonics. 2015;2:020801–020801. doi: 10.1117/1.NPh.2.2.020801.
    1. Amitay S, Irwin A, Hawkey DJ, Cowan JA, Moore DR. A comparison of adaptive procedures for rapid and reliable threshold assessment and training in naive listeners a. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119:1616–1625. doi: 10.1121/1.2164988.
    1. Bauernfeind G, Haumann S, Lenarz T. fNIRS for future use in auditory diagnostics. Curr Direct Biomed Eng. 2016;2:229–232. doi: 10.1515/cdbme-2016-0051.
    1. Belin P, Zatorre RJ, Ahad P. Human temporal-lobe response to vocal sounds. Cogn Brain Res. 2002;13:17–26. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00084-2.
    1. Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1982;14:377–381.
    1. Brechmann A, Baumgart F, Scheich H. Sound-level-dependent representation of frequency modulations in human auditory cortex: a low-noise fMRI study. J Neurophysiol. 2002;87:423–433. doi: 10.1152/jn.00187.2001.
    1. Chen L-C, Sandmann P, Thorne JD, Herrmann CS, Debener S. Association of concurrent fNIRS and EEG signatures in response to auditory and visual stimuli. Brain Topogr. 2015;28:710–725. doi: 10.1007/s10548-015-0424-8.
    1. Church JA, Petersen SE, Schlaggar BL. The “Task B problem” and other considerations in developmental functional neuroimaging. Hum Brain Mapp. 2010;31:852–862. doi: 10.1002/hbm.21036.
    1. Delpy DT, Cope M, van der Zee P, Arridge S, Wray S, Wyatt J. Estimation of optical pathlength through tissue from direct time of flight measurement. Phys Med Biol. 1988;33:1433–1442. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/33/12/008.
    1. Dosenbach NU, et al. Distinct brain networks for adaptive and stable task control in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104:11073–11078. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704320104.
    1. Dreschler WA, Verschuure H, Ludvigsen C, Westermann S. ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment: Ruidos ICRA: Señates de ruido artificial con espectro similar al habla y propiedades temporales para pruebas de instrumentos auditivos. Audiology. 2001;40:148–157. doi: 10.3109/00206090109073110.
    1. Giraud A-L, Lorenzi C, Ashburner J, Wable J, Johnsrude I, Frackowiak R, Kleinschmidt A. Representation of the temporal envelope of sounds in the human brain. J Neurophysiol. 2000;84:1588–1598. doi: 10.1152/jn.2000.84.3.1588.
    1. Giraud A, Kell C, Thierfelder C, Sterzer P, Russ M, Preibisch C, Kleinschmidt A. Contributions of sensory input, auditory search and verbal comprehension to cortical activity during speech processing. Cereb Cortex. 2004;14:247–255. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhg124.
    1. Gusnard DA, Raichle ME. Searching for a baseline: functional imaging and the resting human brain. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001;2:685–694. doi: 10.1038/35094500.
    1. Hall DA, Haggard MP, Summerfield AQ, Akeroyd MA, Palmer AR, Bowtell RW. Functional magnetic resonance imaging measurements of sound-level encoding in the absence of background scanner noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109:1559–1570. doi: 10.1121/1.1345697.
    1. Harms MP, Melcher JR. Sound repetition rate in the human auditory pathway: representations in the waveshape and amplitude of fMRI activation. J Neurophysiol. 2002;88:1433–1450. doi: 10.1152/jn.2002.88.3.1433.
    1. Harms MP, Melcher JR. Detection and quantification of a wide range of fMRI temporal responses using a physiologically-motivated basis set. Hum Brain Mapp. 2003;20:168–183. doi: 10.1002/hbm.10136.
    1. Hart HC, Hall DA, Palmer AR. The sound-level-dependent growth in the extent of fMRI activation in Heschl’s gyrus is different for low-and high-frequency tones. Hear Res. 2003;179:104–112. doi: 10.1016/S0378-5955(03)00100-X.
    1. Hartwigsen G, Baumgaertner A, Price CJ, Koehnke M, Ulmer S, Siebner HR. Phonological decisions require both the left and right supramarginal gyri. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107:16494–16499. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008121107.
    1. Huppert T, Hoge R, Diamond S, Franceschini MA, Boas DA. A temporal comparison of BOLD, ASL, and NIRS hemodynamic responses to motor stimuli in adult humans. NeuroImage. 2006;29:368–382. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.08.065.
    1. Huppert TJ, Diamond SG, Franceschini MA, Boas DA. HomER: a review of time-series analysis methods for near-infrared spectroscopy of the brain. Appl Opt. 2009;48:D280–D298. doi: 10.1364/AO.48.00D280.
    1. Jäncke L, Shah N, Posse S, Grosse-Ryuken M, Müller-Gärtner H-W. Intensity coding of auditory stimuli: an fMRI study. Neuropsychologia. 1998;36:875–883. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00019-0.
    1. Kamran MA, Jeong MY, Mannan MM (2015) Optimal hemodynamic response model for functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Front Behav Neurosci 9
    1. Klem GH, Lüders HO, Jasper H, Elger C. The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;52:3–6.
    1. Langers DR, van Dijk P, Schoenmaker ES, Backes WH. fMRI activation in relation to sound intensity and loudness. NeuroImage. 2007;35:709–718. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.12.013.
    1. Lasota KJ, Ulmer JL, Firszt JB, Biswal BB, Daniels DL, Prost RW. Intensity-dependent activation of the primary auditory cortex in functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003;27:213–218. doi: 10.1097/00004728-200303000-00018.
    1. Lockwood AH, Salvi RJ, Coad ML, Arnold SA, Wack DS, Murphy B, Burkard RF. The functional anatomy of the normal human auditory system: responses to 0.5 and 4.0 kHz tones at varied intensities. Cereb Cortex. 1999;9:65–76. doi: 10.1093/cercor/9.1.65.
    1. McDermott KB, Petersen SE, Watson JM, Ojemann JG. A procedure for identifying regions preferentially activated by attention to semantic and phonological relations using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Neuropsychologia. 2003;41:293–303. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00162-8.
    1. Mohr CM, King WM, Freeman AJ, Briggs RW, Leonard CM. Influence of speech stimuli intensity on the activation of auditory cortex investigated with functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;105:2738–2745. doi: 10.1121/1.426942.
    1. Molavi B, Dumont GA. Wavelet-based motion artifact removal for functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Physiol Meas. 2012;33:259–270. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/33/2/259.
    1. Mueller-Pfeiffer C, Zeffiro T, O’Gorman R, Michels L, Baumann P, Wood N, Spring J, Rufer M, Pitman RK, Orr SP. Cortical and cerebellar modulation of autonomic responses to loud sounds. Psychophysiology. 2014;51:60–69. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12142.
    1. Olds C, et al. Cortical activation patterns correlate with speech understanding after cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2016;37:e160–e172. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000258.
    1. Pollonini L, Olds C, Abaya H, Bortfeld H, Beauchamp MS, Oghalai JS. Auditory cortex activation to natural speech and simulated cochlear implant speech measured with functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Hear Res. 2014;309:84–93. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.11.007.
    1. Raichle ME. The brain’s default mode network. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2015;38:433–447. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-014030.
    1. Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ, Bhatnagar S, Clayton DF, Colombo J, Coppola G, Geyer MA, Glanzman DL, Marsland S, McSweeney FK, Wilson DA, Wu CF, Thompson RF. Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2009;92:135–138. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.09.012.
    1. Röhl M, Uppenkamp S. Neural coding of sound intensity and loudness in the human auditory system. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2012;13:369–379. doi: 10.1007/s10162-012-0315-6.
    1. Sato T, Nambu I, Takeda K, Aihara T, Yamashita O, Isogaya Y, Inoue Y, Otaka Y, Wada Y, Kawato M, Sato MA, Osu R. Reduction of global interference of scalp-hemodynamics in functional near-infrared spectroscopy using short distance probes. NeuroImage. 2016;141:120–132. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.06.054.
    1. Schreiner CE, Malone BJ. The human auditory system: fundamental organization and clinical disorders. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015. Representation of loudness in the auditory cortex; pp. 73–84.
    1. Seifritz E, Neuhoff JG, Bilecen D, Scheffler K, Mustovic H, Schächinger H, Elefante R, di Salle F. Neural processing of auditory looming in the human brain. Curr Biol. 2002;12:2147–2151. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(02)01356-8.
    1. Sevy AB, Bortfeld H, Huppert TJ, Beauchamp MS, Tonini RE, Oghalai JS. Neuroimaging with near-infrared spectroscopy demonstrates speech-evoked activity in the auditory cortex of deaf children following cochlear implantation. Hear Res. 2010;270:39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.09.010.
    1. Sharma A, Tobey E, Dorman M, Bharadwaj S, Martin K, Gilley P, Kunkel F. Central auditory maturation and babbling development in infants with cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:511–516. doi: 10.1001/archotol.130.5.511.
    1. Shulman GL, Fiez JA, Corbetta M, Buckner RL, Miezin FM, Raichle ME, Petersen SE. Common blood flow changes across visual tasks: II. Decreases in cerebral cortex. J Cogn Neurosci. 1997;9:648–663. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1997.9.5.648.
    1. Sigalovsky IS, Melcher JR. Effects of sound level on fMRI activation in human brainstem, thalamic and cortical centers. Hear Res. 2006;215:67–76. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2006.03.002.
    1. Tachtsidis I, Scholkmann F. False positives and false negatives in functional near-infrared spectroscopy: issues, challenges, and the way forward. Neurophotonics. 2016;3:031405–031405. doi: 10.1117/1.NPh.3.3.031405.
    1. Tsuzuki D, Dan I. Spatial registration for functional near-infrared spectroscopy: from channel position on the scalp to cortical location in individual and group analyses. NeuroImage. 2014;85:92–103. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.025.
    1. Wiggins IM, Anderson CA, Kitterick PT, Hartley DE. Speech-evoked activation in adult temporal cortex measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS): are the measurements reliable? Hear Res. 2016;339:142–154. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.07.007.
    1. Woods DL, Stecker GC, Rinne T, Herron TJ, Cate AD, Yund EW, Liao I, Kang X. Functional maps of human auditory cortex: effects of acoustic features and attention. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5183. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005183.
    1. Eickhoff SB, Stephan KE, Mohlberg H, Grefkes C, Fink GR, Amunts K, Zilles K (2005) A new SPM toolbox for combining probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional imaging data. NeuroImage 25(4):1325–1335

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다