BIC-based electrode pairing is validated against psychoacoustic pitch and timing measures
Evidence
In order to tackle the issue of accuracy, a 61-channel monaural and binaural eABR recording setup was developed together with a multi-step offline post-processing strategy specifically for eABR signals. Further, to address the question of method validity the BIC based pairing results are compared with two psychoacoustic pairing methods: interaural pulse time difference sensitivity and interaural pairwise pitch comparison. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1455
The BIC was derived for several interaural electrode pairs by subtracting the response from binaural stimulation from their summed monaural responses. The BIC based pairing results are compared with two psychoacoustic pairing methods: interaural pulse time difference sensitivity and interaural pitch matching. The results for all three methods analyzed as a function of probe electrode allow for determining a matched pair in more than half of the subjects, with a typical accuracy of ±1 electrode. This includes evidence for statistically significant tuning of the BIC as a function of probe electrode in human subjects. However, results across the three conditions were sometimes not consistent. These discrepancies will be discussed in the light of pitch plasticity versus less plastic brainstem processing. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1448
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the reader’s broader interest in how physiological measures (eABR) are cross-validated against psychoacoustic perception measures — a core interface between physiology and cognition of hearing.
- QUESTION: Why do pitch-based pairing and brainstem BIC pairing diverge - what does pitch plasticity imply about the two measures indexing different neural stages?
- corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1455; Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1448