Non-stimulus-evoked activity as a measure of neural noise in the frequency-following response.
Artifact
Electrophysiology
Frequency following response
Impedance
Journal
Journal of neuroscience methods
ISSN: 1872-678X
Titre abrégé: J Neurosci Methods
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7905558
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2021
01 10 2021
Historique:
received:
12
02
2021
revised:
06
07
2021
accepted:
13
07
2021
pubmed:
18
7
2021
medline:
6
10
2021
entrez:
17
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The frequency-following response, or FFR, is a neurophysiologic response that captures distinct aspects of sound processing. Like all evoked responses, FFR is susceptible to electric and myogenic noise contamination during collection. Click-evoked auditory brainstem response collection standards have been adopted for FFR collection, however, whether these standards sufficiently limit FFR noise contamination is unknown. Thus, a critical question remains: to what extent do distinct FFR components reflect noise contamination? This is especially relevant for prestimulus amplitude (i.e., activity preceding the evoked response), as this measure has been used to index both noise contamination and neural noise. We performed two experiments. First, using >1000 young-adult FFRs, we ran regressions to determine the variance explained by myogenic and electrical noise, as indexed by artifact rejection count and electrode impedance, on each FFR component. Second, we reanalyzed prestimulus amplitude differences attributed to athletic experience and socioeconomic status, adding covariates of artifact rejection and impedance. We found that non-neural noise marginally contributed to FFR components and could not explain group differences on prestimulus amplitude. Prestimulus amplitude has been considered a measure of non-neural noise contamination. However, non-neural noise was not the sole contributor to variance in this measure and did not explain group differences. Results from the two experiments suggest that the effects of non-neural noise on FFR components are minimal and do not obscure individual differences in the FFR and that prestimulus amplitude indexes neural noise.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The frequency-following response, or FFR, is a neurophysiologic response that captures distinct aspects of sound processing. Like all evoked responses, FFR is susceptible to electric and myogenic noise contamination during collection. Click-evoked auditory brainstem response collection standards have been adopted for FFR collection, however, whether these standards sufficiently limit FFR noise contamination is unknown. Thus, a critical question remains: to what extent do distinct FFR components reflect noise contamination? This is especially relevant for prestimulus amplitude (i.e., activity preceding the evoked response), as this measure has been used to index both noise contamination and neural noise.
NEW METHOD
We performed two experiments. First, using >1000 young-adult FFRs, we ran regressions to determine the variance explained by myogenic and electrical noise, as indexed by artifact rejection count and electrode impedance, on each FFR component. Second, we reanalyzed prestimulus amplitude differences attributed to athletic experience and socioeconomic status, adding covariates of artifact rejection and impedance.
RESULTS
We found that non-neural noise marginally contributed to FFR components and could not explain group differences on prestimulus amplitude.
COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD
Prestimulus amplitude has been considered a measure of non-neural noise contamination. However, non-neural noise was not the sole contributor to variance in this measure and did not explain group differences.
CONCLUSIONS
Results from the two experiments suggest that the effects of non-neural noise on FFR components are minimal and do not obscure individual differences in the FFR and that prestimulus amplitude indexes neural noise.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34273451
pii: S0165-0270(21)00225-9
doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2021.109290
pmc: PMC8403647
mid: NIHMS1727867
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
109290Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS102500
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Références
Ear Hear. 2012 May-Jun;33(3):305-14
pubmed: 22343545
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997 Jan;102(1):46-53
pubmed: 9060854
Scand Audiol. 1984;13(3):187-97
pubmed: 6494805
J Neurophysiol. 1984 Jun;51(6):1326-44
pubmed: 6737033
Neuroimage. 2018 Jul 15;175:56-69
pubmed: 29604459
Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2016 Aug 7;51(8):583-8
pubmed: 27625127
Clin Neurophysiol. 2012 Mar;123(3):590-7
pubmed: 21855407
Scand Audiol. 1984;13(4):219-28
pubmed: 6523040
Nat Commun. 2016 Mar 24;7:11070
pubmed: 27009409
Hear Res. 2005 Jul;205(1-2):53-67
pubmed: 15953515
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Nov;19(11):642-654
pubmed: 26454481
Behav Brain Res. 2005 Jan 6;156(1):95-103
pubmed: 15474654
Nat Commun. 2019 Nov 6;10(1):5036
pubmed: 31695046
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Jan;168(1-2):1-10
pubmed: 16217645
J Neurophysiol. 2006 Mar;95(3):1926-35
pubmed: 16339005
Hear Res. 2020 Jun;391:107957
pubmed: 32278945
Cereb Cortex. 2015 Jun;25(6):1415-26
pubmed: 24366906
Psychophysiology. 2010 Sep;47(5):888-904
pubmed: 20374541
Hear Res. 2008 Nov;245(1-2):35-47
pubmed: 18765275
Sports Health. 2020 Mar/Apr;12(2):154-158
pubmed: 31813316
Ear Hear. 2010 Jun;31(3):302-24
pubmed: 20084007
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2017 Apr;126(4):290-295
pubmed: 28177264
Hear Res. 2019 Sep 1;380:166-174
pubmed: 31306931
J Neurosci. 2013 Oct 30;33(44):17221-31
pubmed: 24174656
J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Nov;124(5):3053-63
pubmed: 19045791
Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Dec;126(12):2348-55
pubmed: 25801342
Hear Res. 2019 Oct;382:107779
pubmed: 31505395
Psychophysiology. 2010 Mar 1;47(2):236-46
pubmed: 19824950
Hear Res. 2003 Sep;183(1-2):137-53
pubmed: 13679145
J Neurophysiol. 2019 Aug 1;122(2):844-848
pubmed: 31268800
Med Sci Monit. 2017 May 14;23:2275-2283
pubmed: 28501877
Ear Hear. 2011 Mar-Apr;32(2):168-80
pubmed: 21052004
Hear Res. 2020 Dec;398:108075
pubmed: 32977200
Clin Neurophysiol. 2004 Sep;115(9):2021-30
pubmed: 15294204
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1989 Jan-Feb;74(1):46-9
pubmed: 2463148
Hear Res. 2013 Apr;298:104-8
pubmed: 23276730
Hear Res. 2003 Jun;180(1-2):28-38
pubmed: 12782350