Top

Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Published in:

Open Access 05-12-2022 | Aphasia | Research Article

Informational Masking in Aging and Brain-lesioned Individuals

Authors: Haleh Farahbod, Corianne Rogalsky, Lynsey M. Keator, Julia Cai, Sara B. Pillay, Katie Turner, Arianna LaCroix, Julius Fridriksson, Jeffrey R. Binder, John C. Middlebrooks, Gregory Hickok, Kourosh Saberi

Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Auditory stream segregation and informational masking were investigated in brain-lesioned individuals, age-matched controls with no neurological disease, and young college-age students. A psychophysical paradigm known as rhythmic masking release (RMR) was used to examine the ability of participants to identify a change in the rhythmic sequence of 20-ms Gaussian noise bursts presented through headphones and filtered through generalized head-related transfer functions to produce the percept of an externalized auditory image (i.e., a 3D virtual reality sound). The target rhythm was temporally interleaved with a masker sequence comprising similar noise bursts in a manner that resulted in a uniform sequence with no information remaining about the target rhythm when the target and masker were presented from the same location (an impossible task). Spatially separating the target and masker sequences allowed participants to determine if there was a change in the target rhythm midway during its presentation. RMR thresholds were defined as the minimum spatial separation between target and masker sequences that resulted in 70.7% correct-performance level in a single-interval 2-alternative forced-choice adaptive tracking procedure. The main findings were (1) significantly higher RMR thresholds for individuals with brain lesions (especially those with damage to parietal areas) and (2) a left–right spatial asymmetry in performance for lesion (but not control) participants. These findings contribute to a better understanding of spatiotemporal relations in informational masking and the neural bases of auditory scene analysis.

Available only for authorised users

Informational masking has been defined in a number of different ways. Here, RMR is referred to as informational (un)masking because what is interfered with is a temporal pattern of information as is typical in studies of informational masking. While the dependent measure used in the current study is spatial separation instead of decibels, what is being masked (or unmasked) is in fact a pattern of information. Also note that there was no temporal overlap between the target and masker sound pulses and, hence, no energetic masking.

Each participant in the older adult group completed exactly 5 runs, while some individuals in the young control group ran fewer and some more, averaging 4.85 runs across the 13 participants and ranging from 3 to 8 runs.

Each of the 4 research sites had their own established protocol for measuring audiogram thresholds. Supplemental Table 1 shows pure-tone thresholds for frequencies that were common to all sites, ranging from 0.5 to 4 kHz. One site recorded only pass/fail results at each frequency (up to 4 kHz) and for each ear instead of threshold values, with a pass/fail criterion of 35 dB HL. The analysis described here is based on the 32 lesion individuals and 15 older adult participants for whom numeric audiogram thresholds were available. For each participant, we calculated the overall threshold value averaged across ears and frequencies. Other than the nearly identical mean hearing threshold value (17.04 and 16.97 dB HL), the standard deviations of audiogram thresholds were also similar (9.8 and 7.8 dB for the lesion and older adult controls, respectively). Obviously a more nuanced analysis that considers the effects of loss at different regions of the spectrum may provide some additional insights. For example, it has been suggested that RMR thresholds are more severely influenced by rhythmic information in the low-frequency regions of the spectrum [16]. Examination of performance for four of our lesion participants with the poorest low-frequency hearing thresholds did not reveal any noticeable pattern, as even in these worst cases their low-frequency loss was not severe and their RMR thresholds fell within a wide range of performances. Audiograms were not measured for the young adult group who self-reported normal hearing.

This study is part of a larger project aimed at measuring the effects of auditory processing deficits on aphasia.

For one participant, L19 (see Supplemental Table 1), we have MRI confirmation of a small lesion in the brainstem. We did not, however, compute a lesion volume for this participant or map the lesion into standardized space because lesion mapping in normalized space procedures is not optimized for brainstem lesions. Furthermore, combining cerebral and brainstem lesion volumes is not considered ideal since a small brainstem lesion can cause major impairment, whereas a lesion of the same size in the cerebrum typically has little effect and may even go unnoticed.

A bistable “image,” often used in studies of stream segregation, is a stimulus that is sometimes perceived as one type and sometimes as another (e.g., Necker cube, or young/old woman illusion in vision). In the auditory experiments described here, the ambiguous sound is sometimes perceived as two objects (two different streams of sound, each with its own identity) or as one coherent complex object (a single stream of sound).

Bregman AS (ed) (1990) Auditory scene analysis: the perceptual organization of sound. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

Yost WA (1997) The cocktail party problem: forty years later. In: Gilkey RH, Anderson TR (eds) Binaural and spatial hearing in real and virtual environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, pp 329–347

Carlyon RP, Cusack R, Foxton JM, Robertson IH (2001) Effects of attention and unilateral neglect on auditory stream segregation. J Exp Psych Hum Percept Perform 27(1):115–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.115CrossRef

Moore BCJ, Gockel H (2002) Factors influencing sequential stream segregation. Acta Acust United Acust 88:320–332

Disbergen NR, Valente G, Formisano E, Zatorre RJ (2018) Assessing top-down and bottom-up contributions to auditory stream segregation and integration with polyphonic music. Front Neurosci 12:article 121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00121

Yerkes BD, Weintraub DM, Snyder JS (2019) Stimulus-based and task-based attention modulate auditory stream segregation context effects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 45(1):53–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000587CrossRefPubMed

Pollack I (1975) Auditory informational masking. J Acoust Soc Am 57:S5. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1995329CrossRef

Brungart DS, Simpson BD, Ericson MA, Scott KR (2001) Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of multiple simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 110(5):2527–2538. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1408946CrossRefPubMed

Kidd G Jr, Mason CR, Swaminathan J, Roverud E, Clayton KK, Best V (2016) Determining the energetic and informational components of speech-on-speech masking. J Acoust Soc Am 140(1):132–144. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4954748CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Swets JA (ed) (1964) Signal detection and recognition by human observers. Wiley, New York

11.

Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley, New York

12.

Culling JF, Stone MA (2017) Energetic masking and masking release. In: Middlebrooks J, Simon J, Popper A, Fay R (eds) The auditory system at the cocktail party. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, vol 60. Springer, New York, pp. 41–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51662-2_3

13.

Turgeon M, Bregman AS, Ahad PA (2002) Rhythmic masking release: contribution of cues for perceptual organization to the cross-spectral fusion of concurrent narrow-band noises. J Acoust Soc Am 111(4):1819–1831. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1453450CrossRefPubMed

14.

Turgeon M, Bregman AS, Roberts B (2005) Rhythmic masking release: effects of asynchrony, temporal overlap, harmonic relations, and source separation on cross-spectral grouping. J Exp Psych Hum Percept Perform 31(5):939–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.5.939CrossRef

15.

Sach AJ, Bailey PJ (2004) Some characteristics of auditory spatial attention revealed using rhythmic masking release. Percept Psychophys 66(8):1379–1387. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195005CrossRefPubMed

16.

Middlebrooks JC (2013) High-acuity spatial stream segregation. In: Moore B, Patterson R, Winter I, Carlyon R, Gockel H (eds) Basic Aspects of Hearing. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 787. Springer, New York, pp. 491–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1590-9_54

17.

Middlebrooks JC (2017) Spatial stream segregation. In: Middlebrooks J, Simon J, Popper A, Fay R (eds) The Auditory System at the Cocktail Party. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, vol 60. Springer, pp. 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51662-2_6

18.

Middlebrooks JC, Onsan ZA (2012) Stream segregation with high spatial acuity. J Acoust Soc Am 132(6):3896–3911. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4764879CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Middlebrooks JC, Bremen P (2013) Spatial stream segregation by auditory cortical neurons. J Neurosci 33(27):10986–11001. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1065-13.2013CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Helfer KS, Freyman RL (2008) Aging and speech-on-speech masking. Ear Hear 29(1):87–98. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31815d638bCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Pichora-Fuller MK, Alain C, Schneider BA (2017) Older adults at the cocktail party. In: Middlebrooks J, Simon J, Popper A, Fay R (eds) The auditory system at the cocktail party. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, vol 60. Springer, New York, pp. 227–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51662-2_9

22.

Efron R, Crandall PH, Koss B, Divenyi PL, Yund EW (1983) Central auditory processing III. The “cocktail party” effect and anterior temporal lobectomy. Brain Lang 19(2):254–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(83)90069-X

23.

Zündorf IC, Karnath H, Lewald J (2014) The effect of brain lesions on sound localization in complex acoustic environments. Brain 137:1410–1418. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu044CrossRefPubMed

24.

Moore BCJ, Mariathasan S, Sek AP (2018) Effects of age on the discrimination of amplitude and frequency modulation for 2- and 10-Hz rates. Acta Acust United Acust 104(5):778–782. https://doi.org/10.3813/AAA.919222CrossRef

25.

Moore BCJ, Sek AP (2019) Discrimination of the phase of amplitude modulation applied to different carriers: effects of modulation rate and modulation depth for young and older subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 146(3):1696–1704. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5126515CrossRefPubMed

26.

Moore BCJ, Mariathasan S, Sek AP (2019) Effects of age and hearing loss on the discrimination of amplitude and frequency modulation for 2- and 10-Hz rates. Trends Hear 23:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216519853963CrossRef

27.

Puschmann S, Sandman P, Bendixen A, Thiel CM (2014) Age-related hearing loss increases cross-modal distractibility. Hear Res 316:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2014.07.005CrossRefPubMed

28.

Gygi B, Shafiro V (2014) Spatial and temporal modifications of multitalker speech can improve speech perception in older adults. Hear Res 310:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2014.01.009CrossRefPubMed

29.

Getzmann S (2012) Handicapped due to age? Behavioral and electrophysiological correlates of speech perception of dichotically presented narratives in young and middle-aged listeners. J Psychophysiol 26(3):132–144. https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000076CrossRef

30.

Getzmann S, Falkenstein M (2011) Understanding of spoken language under challenging listening conditions in younger and older listeners: a combined behavioral and electrophysiological study. Brain Res 1415:8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2011.08.001CrossRefPubMed

31.

Strouse A, Ashmead DH, Ohde RN, Grantham DW (1998) Temporal processing in the aging auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 104(4):2385–2399. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.423748CrossRefPubMed

32.

Rogalsky C, Basilakos A, Rorden C, Pillay S, LaCroix AN, Mickelsen S, Anderson SW, Love T, Fridriksson J, Binder J, Hickok G (2022) The neuroanatomy of speech processing: a large-scale lesion study. J Cogn Neurosci 34(8):1355–1375. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01876CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Gardner WG, Martin KD (1994) HRTF measurements of a KEMAR dummy-head microphone. MIT Media Lab Perceptual Computing Technical Report #280

34.

Javier LK, McGuire EA, Middlebrooks JC (2016) Spatial stream segregation by cats. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 17:195–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-016-0561-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Levitt H (1971) Transformed up=down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49(2B):467–477. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912375CrossRef

36.

Yost WA, Hafter ER (1987) Lateralization. In:Yost WA, Gourevitch G (eds) Directional Hearing. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 49–84.

37.

Rabiner LR, Gold B (1975) Theory and application of digital signal processing. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey

38.

Körner TW (1989) Fourier analysis. Cambridge University Press

39.

Rice SO (1944) Mathematical analysis of random noise. Bell Syst Tech J 23:282–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1944.tb00874.xCrossRef

40.

Saberi K (2004) Fast Fourier-based DSP algorithm for auditory motion experiments. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 36(4):585–589. [also see erratum 2008, 40, 635]. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206538

41.

Saberi K, Petrosyan A (2006) Effects of interaural decorrelation and acoustic spectrum on detecting the motion of an auditory target. Acoust Phys 52(1):87–92. https://doi.org/10.1134/S106377100601012XCrossRef

42.

Saberi K (1995) Some considerations on the use of adaptive methods for measuring interaural-delay thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 98(3):1803–1806. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.413379CrossRefPubMed

43.

Middlebrooks JC, Pettigrew JD (1981) Functional classes of neurons in primary auditory cortex of the cat distinguished by sensitivity to sound location. J Neurosci 1(1):107–120. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.01-01-00107.1981CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Woods TM, Lopez SE, Long JH, Rahman JE, Recanzone GH (2006) Effects of stimulus azimuth and intensity on the single-neuron activity in the auditory cortex of the alert macaque monkey. J Neurophys 96:3323–3337. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00392.2006CrossRef

45.

Werner-Reiss U, Groh JM (2008) A rate code for sound azimuth in monkey auditory cortex: Implications for human neuroimaging studies. J Neurosci 28(14):3747–3758. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5044-07.2008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Zatorre RJ, Penhune VB (2001) Spatial localization after excision of human auditory cortex. J Neurosci 21(16):6321–6328. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-16-06321.2001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Middlebrooks JC (2015) Sound localization. In: Aminoff MJ, Boller F, Swaab DF (eds) Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Vol. 129 (3^rd series). The Human Auditory System. Elsevier, New York, pp. 99-116

48.

Middlebrooks JC, Clock AE, Xu L, Green DM (1994) A panoramic code for sound location by cortical neurons. Science 264(5160):842–844. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.8171339

49.

Cusack R (2005) The intraparietal sulcus and perceptual organization. J Cogn Neurosci 17(4):641–651. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929053467541CrossRefPubMed

50.

Hill K, Bishop CW, Yadav D, Miller LM (2011) Pattern of BOLD signal in auditory cortex relates acoustic response to perceptual streaming. BMC Neurosci 12: article number 85. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-12-85

51.

Chait M, Kumar S, von Kriegstein K, Griffiths TD (2011) Brain bases for auditory stimulus-driven figure–ground segregation. J Neurosci 31(1):164–171. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3788-10.2011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Ragert M, Fairhurst MT, Keller PE (2014) Segregation and integration of auditory streams when listening to multi-part music. PLoS ONE 9(1):e84085. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084085CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Teki S, Barascud N, Picard S, Payne C, Griffiths TD, Chait M (2016) Neural correlates of auditory figure-ground segregation based on temporal coherence. Cereb Cortex 26(9):3669–3680. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw173CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Wightman FL, Kistler DJ (1992) The dominant role of low frequency interaural time differences in sound localization. J Acoust Soc Am 91(3):1648–1661. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.402445CrossRefPubMed

55.

Macpherson EA, Middlebrooks JC (2002) Listener weighting of cues for lateral angle: the duplex theory of sound localization revisited. J Acoust Soc Am 111(5):2219–2236. https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.1471898

56.

Saberi K, Farahbod H, Turner K, Hickok G (2022) Detection of dynamic changes in interaural delay by older adults. J Acoust Soc Am 152(4):2292–2295. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0014833CrossRefPubMed

57.

Eddins AC, Ozmeral EJ, Eddins DA (2018) How aging impacts the encoding of binaural cues and the perception of auditory space. Hear Res 369:79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2018.05.001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Yao JD, Bremen P, Middlebrooks JC (2015) Emergence of spatial stream segregation in the ascending auditory pathway. J Neurosci 35(49):16199–16212. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3116-15.2015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Snyder JS, Alain C (2007) Toward a neurophysiological theory of auditory stream segregation. Psychol Bull 133(5):780–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.780CrossRefPubMed

60.

Snyder JS, Alain C, Picton TW (2006) Effects of attention on neuroelectric correlates of auditory stream segregation. J Cogn Neurosci 18(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892906775250021CrossRefPubMed

61.

Weintraub DM, Snyder JS (2015) Evidence for high-level feature encoding and persistent memory during auditory stream segregation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 41(6):1563–1575. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039597CrossRefPubMed

62.

Teki S, Chait M, Kumar S, von Kriegstein K, Griffiths TD (2011) Brain bases for auditory stimulus-driven figure-ground segregation. J Neurosci 31(9):164–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhw173CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

63.

Shafritz KM, Gore JC, Marois R (2002) The role of the parietal cortex in visual feature binding. PNAS USA 99(16):10917–10922. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.152694799CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Donner TH, Kettermann A, Diesch E, Ostendorf F, Villringer A, Brandt SA (2002) Visual feature and conjunction searches of equal difficulty engage only partially overlapping frontoparietal networks. Neuroimage 15(1):16–25. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0951CrossRefPubMed

65.

Kitada R, Kochiyama T, Hashimoto T, Naito E, Matsumura M (2003) Moving tactile stimuli of fingers are integrated in the intraparietal and inferior parietal cortices. NeuroReport 14(5):719–724. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200304150-00012CrossRefPubMed

66.

Calvert GA (2001) Crossmodal processing in the human brain: insights from functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb Cortex 11(12):1110–1123. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/11.12.1110CrossRefPubMed

67.

Calvert GA, Hansen PC, Iversen SD, Brammer MJ (2001) Detection of audio-visual integration sites in humans by application of electrophysiological criteria to the BOLD effect. Neuroimage 14(2):427–438. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0812CrossRefPubMed

68.

Macaluso E, Frith CD, Driver J (2001) Multimodal mechanisms of attention related to rates of spatial shifting in vision and touch. Exp Brain Res 137:445–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210000656CrossRefPubMed

69.

Saito DN, Okada T, Morita Y, Yonekura Y, Sadato N (2003) Tactile–visual cross-modal shape matching: a functional MRI study. Cogn Brain Res 17(1):14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00076-4CrossRef

70.

Szalardy O, Bendixen A, Bohm TM, Davies LA, Denham SL (2014) The effects of rhythm and melody on auditory stream segregation. J Acoust Soc Am 135(3):1392–1405. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4865196CrossRefPubMed

71.

Middlebrooks JC, Waters MF (2020) Spatial mechanisms for segregation of competing sounds, and a breakdown in spatial hearing. Front Neurosci 14: article 571095. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.571095

72.

Duffour-Nikolov C, Tardif E, Maeder P, Bellmann Thiran A, Bloch J, Frischknecht R, Clarke S (2012) Auditory spatial deficits following hemispheric lesions: dissociation of explicit and implicit processing. Neuropsychol Rehabil 22(5):674–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2012.686818CrossRefPubMed

73.

Shiell MM, Formisano E (2019) Accuity of spatial stream segregation along the horizontal azimuth with non-individualized head-related transfer functions. Proceedings of the 23^rd International Congress on Acoustics, Aachen, Germany, 6644–6649.

74.

Cherry EC (1953) Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. J Acoust Soc Am 25(5):975–979. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907229CrossRef

75.

Farahbod H, Saberi K, Hickok G (2020) The rhythm of attention: perceptual modulation via rhythmic entrainment is lowpass and attention mediated. Atten Percept Psychophys 82:3558–3570. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02095-yCrossRefPubMed

76.

Hickok G, Farahbod H, Saberi K (2015) The rhythm of perception: entrainment to acoustic rhythms induces subsequent perceptual oscillation. Psychol Sci 26(7):1006–1013. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0956797615576533

77.

Saberi K, Hickok G (2021) Forward entrainment: evidence, controversies, constraints, and mechanisms. bioRxiv 2021.07.06.451373; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.06.451373

78.

Saberi K, Hickok G (2022) A critical analysis of Lin et al.’s (2021) failure to observe forward entrainment in pitch discrimination. Eur J Neurosci 56(8):5191–5200. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.15778CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

79.

Saberi K, Hickok G (2022) Confirming an antiphasic bicyclic pattern of forward entrainment in signal detection: a reanalysis of Sun et al. (2021). Eur J Neurosci 56(8):5274–5286. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.15816CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

80.

Saberi K, Hickok G (2022) Forward entrainment: psychophysics, neural correlations, and function. Psychon Bull Rev (in press). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02220-y

Title: Informational Masking in Aging and Brain-lesioned Individuals
Authors: Haleh Farahbod
Corianne Rogalsky
Lynsey M. Keator
Julia Cai
Sara B. Pillay
Katie Turner
Arianna LaCroix
Julius Fridriksson
Jeffrey R. Binder
John C. Middlebrooks
Gregory Hickok
Kourosh Saberi
Publication date: 05-12-2022
Publisher: Springer US
Keyword: Aphasia
Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology / Issue 1/2023
Print ISSN: 1525-3961
Electronic ISSN: 1438-7573
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-022-00877-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Informational Masking in Aging and Brain-lesioned Individuals

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Otolith Membrane Herniation, not Semicircular Canal Duct Dilation, Is Associated with Decreased Caloric Responses in Ménière’s Disease

A Brief History of JARO—An Origin Story!

Vestibular Drop Attacks and Meniere’s Disease as Results of Otolithic Membrane Damage—A Numerical Model

Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Measures of Temporal Pitch Sensitivity in Normal-hearing Listeners

Low Evidence for Tinnitus Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cochlear Health and Cochlear-implant Function