Neural signatures of auditory hypersensitivity following acoustic trauma

Abstract

Neurons in sensory cortex exhibit a remarkable capacity to maintain stable firing rates despite large fluctuations in afferent activity levels. However, sudden peripheral deafferentation in adulthood can trigger an excessive, non-homeostatic cortical compensatory response that may underlie perceptual disorders including sensory hypersensitivity, phantom limb pain, and tinnitus. Here, we show that mice with noise-induced damage of the high-frequency cochlear base were behaviorally hypersensitive to spared mid-frequency tones and to direct optogenetic stimulation of auditory thalamocortical neurons. Chronic 2-photon calcium imaging from ACtx pyramidal neurons (PyrNs) revealed an initial stage of spatially diffuse hyperactivity, hyper-correlation, and auditory hyperresponsivity that consolidated around deafferented map regions three or more days after acoustic trauma. Deafferented PyrN ensembles also displayed hypersensitive decoding of spared mid-frequency tones that mirrored behavioral hypersensitivity, suggesting that non-homeostatic regulation of cortical sound intensity coding following sensorineural loss may be an underlying source of auditory hypersensitivity. Excess cortical response gain after acoustic trauma was expressed heterogeneously among individual PyrNs, yet 40% of this variability could be accounted for by each cell's baseline response properties prior to acoustic trauma. PyrNs with initially high spontaneous activity and gradual monotonic intensity growth functions were more likely to exhibit non-homeostatic excess gain after acoustic trauma. This suggests that while cortical gain changes are triggered by reduced bottom-up afferent input, their subsequent stabilization is also shaped by their local circuit milieu, where indicators of reduced inhibition can presage pathological hyperactivity following sensorineural hearing loss.

Data availability

All Figure code and data will be available on the Harvard Dataverse at the following:doi:10.7910/DVN/JLIKOZ

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Matthew McGill

    Division of Medical Sciences, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    mmcgill@g.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2322-9580
  2. Ariel E Hight

    Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yurika L Watanabe

    Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Aravindakshan Parthasarathy

    Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Dongqin Cai

    Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kameron Clayton

    Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Kenneth E Hancock

    Eaton Peabody Laboratory, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Anne Takesian

    Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sharon G Kujawa

    Department of Otolaryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Daniel B Polley

    Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5120-2409

Funding

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC018974-02)

  • Matthew McGill

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC014871)

  • Ariel E Hight

Nancy Lurie Marks Family Foundation

  • Anne Takesian
  • Daniel B Polley

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC009836)

  • Daniel B Polley

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC015857)

  • Sharon G Kujawa
  • Daniel B Polley

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (DC018353)

  • Anne Takesian

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures were approved by the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Animal Care and Use Committee and followed the guidelines established by the National Institute of Health for the care and use of laboratory animals.

Human subjects: The study was approved by the human subjects Institutional Review Board at Mass General Brigham and Massachusetts Eye and Ear. Data analysis was performed on de-identified data, in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Copyright

© 2022, McGill et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,305
    views
  • 354
    downloads
  • 28
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Matthew McGill
  2. Ariel E Hight
  3. Yurika L Watanabe
  4. Aravindakshan Parthasarathy
  5. Dongqin Cai
  6. Kameron Clayton
  7. Kenneth E Hancock
  8. Anne Takesian
  9. Sharon G Kujawa
  10. Daniel B Polley
(2022)
Neural signatures of auditory hypersensitivity following acoustic trauma
eLife 11:e80015.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80015

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80015

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Jacob A Miller
    Insight

    When navigating environments with changing rules, human brain circuits flexibly adapt how and where we retain information to help us achieve our immediate goals.

    1. Neuroscience
    Zhujun Shao, Mengya Zhang, Qing Yu
    Research Article

    When holding visual information temporarily in working memory (WM), the neural representation of the memorandum is distributed across various cortical regions, including visual and frontal cortices. However, the role of stimulus representation in visual and frontal cortices during WM has been controversial. Here, we tested the hypothesis that stimulus representation persists in the frontal cortex to facilitate flexible control demands in WM. During functional MRI, participants flexibly switched between simple WM maintenance of visual stimulus or more complex rule-based categorization of maintained stimulus on a trial-by-trial basis. Our results demonstrated enhanced stimulus representation in the frontal cortex that tracked demands for active WM control and enhanced stimulus representation in the visual cortex that tracked demands for precise WM maintenance. This differential frontal stimulus representation traded off with the newly-generated category representation with varying control demands. Simulation using multi-module recurrent neural networks replicated human neural patterns when stimulus information was preserved for network readout. Altogether, these findings help reconcile the long-standing debate in WM research, and provide empirical and computational evidence that flexible stimulus representation in the frontal cortex during WM serves as a potential neural coding scheme to accommodate the ever-changing environment.