Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1980, 4 9 : 3 0 3 - - 3 1 3
© Elsevier/North-Holland Scientific Publishers, Ltd.
BINAURAL INTERACTION IN HUMAN AUDITORY EVOKED POTENTIALS 1
R.A. DOBIE 2 and S.J. NORTON
Veterans Administration Medical Center, and Department of Otolaryngology, University of Washington, Seattle,
Wash. 98108 (U.S.A.)
(Accepted for publication: December 7, 1979)
Binaural interaction (BI) is known to occur
at most levels of the auditory brain stem:
inferior colliculus {Erulkar 1959; Hind et al.
1963; Lehman and Hafter 1972), dorsal nu-
cleus of the lateral lemniscus (Brugge et al.
1970), superior olivary complex (Galambos et
al. 1959; Hall 1965), and dorsal cochlear nu-
cleus {Mast 1970). Psychophysical tests of BI,
including phase audiometry (Nilsson et al.
1973), localization tests (Jerger 1960a, b;
Matzger 1959), and the masking level differ-
ence test (Olsen et al. 1976), are sensitive to
lesions affecting the brain stem in man. Simi-
lar effects have been seen in behavioral studies
in animals after experimental brain stem
lesions (Masterton et al. 1967, 1968; Casseday
and Neff 1975).
A physiological test of BI has potential
value in the clinical evaluation of patients
with suspected disorders of the central audi-
tory nervous system. In recent years, the
brain stem evoked potential (BSEP) has been
widely used in the study of both normal and
abnormal auditory systems. BSEP appears to
reflect the volume-conducted algebraic sum of
neural activity of large numbers of neurons in
the brain stem auditory nuclei (Buchwald and
1 This study was supported by PHS Fellowship Grant
No. NS-07058-01A1 and by a Veterans Administra-
tion Research Advisory Group grant.
2 Correspondence to: Robert A. Dobie, M.D.,
F.A.C.S., Chief, Otolaryngology, VA Medical Center,
4435 Beacon Avenue South, Seattle, Wash. 98108,
U.S.A.
303
Huang 1975; Huang and Buchwald 1977;
Stockard and Rossiter 1977). Waves I and II
almost certainly represent synchronous dis-
charge of units in the VIIIth nerve and
cochlear nuclei, respectively, ipsilateral to the
ear stimulated. Later waves presumably repre-
sent activity at higher levels: superior olivary
complex, nuclei of the lateral lemnisci, infe-
rior colliculi, and medial geniculate. The pre-
cise identification of the sources of later
waves is unclear; third and higher order units
are dispersed throughout the auditory brain
stem, and it is likely that multiple generators,
including both the brain stem nuclei and asso-
ciated fiber tracts, are involved (Achor 1976).
Since BI is prominent in the unit activity
recorded from brain stem auditory units, it
seemed appropriate to study this phenome-
non in far-field surface recorded potentials,
such as BSEP.
Dobie and Berlin (1979) studied BI in the
BSEP of anesthetized guinea pigs. BI was
defined as any deviation from the predictions
of a simple monaural-addition model of bin-
aural responses. Such a model assumes two
independent BSEP generators (or sets of
generators), one for each ear, whose outputs
do not interact. System o u t p u t under condi-
tions of binaural stimulation would then be
pre~lictable by algebraic summation of the
responses to monaural stimulation. In practice,
for a given stimulus condition, responses to
binaural, right, and left stimulation are
recorded. The left and right monaurally
evoked responses are added together to yield
304 R.A. D O B I E , S.J. N O R T O N

Ill
IL

I i1~ IV V

IV

DP2

DN I llO pV
I
1 msec
Fig. 1. B i n a u r a l i n t e r a c t i o n in g u i n e a pig BSEP. L e f t : r e s p o n s e s f r o m m o n a u r a l (L, R) a n d b i n a u r a l (B) stimula-
t i o n . R i g h t : b i n a u r a l r e s p o n s e t h a t w o u l d be p r e d i c t e d b y s u m m a t i o n o f t h e m o n a u r a l r e s p o n s e s (P = L + R),
c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e B a n d P traces, a n d t h e d i f f e r e n c e trace (D = B - - P) r e p r e s e n t i n g derived b i n a u r a l i n t e r a c t i o n .
S t i m u l u s i n t e n s i t y = 87 dB p e S P L ; 20 clicks/sec; N = 512. C o m p a r a b l e d a t a f r o m a h u m a n s u b j e c t are s h o w n in
Fig. 3.

the model's predicted binaural response (the P about 3.5--4.0 msec) there was significant
trace), and this is compared to the obtained non-linear interaction as reflected in the am-
binaural response (the B trace). plitude of wave IV and the latency of peak
In addition, a difference trace (D) is ob- IV' (the vertex-negative peak following wave
tained by subtracting the P trace from the B IV}. Both are significantly reduced in the bin-
trace. In the absence of BI, the result will be a aural condition. The D traces were character-
straight line, D = 0. With this technique, inter- ized by a sharp negative peak followed by a
action occurring anywhere in the response positive peak with latencies roughly corre-
will be seen in the D trace; comparison of sponding to waves IV and IV', respectively.
peak amplitudes and latencies in the B and P The BI as reflected in the D trace was of a
traces could miss interactions at points other greater magnitude and complexity than that
than the wave peaks. indicated by direct comparison of wave IV
The basic paradigm is illustrated in Fig. 1. and IV' in the B and P conditions. BI was
The interaction was similar for all animals maximal for simultaneous clicks of equal
tested. There was no interaction in waves I intensity, but was present in a majority of ani-
through III. In the wave IV region {latency of mals when interaural time differences of up to
BINAURAL INTERACTION IN EVOKED POTENTIALS
3 msec and interaural intensity difference of
up to 40 dB were introduced.
Using an identical paradigm, Huang and
Buchwald (1978) found wave IV amplitude
decreased in the binaural response compared
to the summed monaural response in cats.
Clopton (1979) independently c o n d u c t e d a
set of experiments in the guinea pig very simi-
lar to Dobie and Berlin's (1979), with essen-
tially identical findings.
Binaural interaction has not been studied
previously in a comparable manner in human
BSEP. Several investigators have compared
BSEP for simple monaural and binaural stimu-
lation. Blegvad (1975), M~ller and Blegvad
(1976), and Van Olphen et al. ( 1 9 7 8 ) a l l
found that wave V amplitude in binaural
responses was larger than in monaural
responses. Van Olphen et al. (1978) stated
that wave V amplitudes in binaural responses
were slightly smaller than the summed peak
amplitudes of left and right monaural
responses b u t presented no data bearing
directly on this point. Skinner and Shimota
(1972), in a study of middle-latency auditory
evoked potentials (middle AEP, 10--50 msec),
f o u n d that Na--Pa amplitude was larger for
binaural than for monaural stimulation. Peters
and Mendel (1974) compared middle AEP for
binaural clicks to those obtained for loudness-
matched monaural clicks and found no differ-
ences in the responses. None of these studies
compared binaural responses to summed mon-
aural responses.
We are aware of only one previous study of
BI (using the paradigm e m p l o y e d by Dobie
and Berlin) in human auditory evoked poten-
tials. Gerken et al. (1975) compared binaural
to summed monaural frequency-following
responses in humans and found no significant
differences.
Dobie and Berlin ( 1 9 7 9 ) r e p o r t e d prelimi-
nary data showing BI in human BSEP. The
present study extends this finding in a group
of normal human subjects. In addition,
because of the marked variability seen in our
pilot studies of BI in human BSEP, we mea-
sured BI in middle AEP; these responses are
305
presumed to reflect a combination of tha-
lamic and/or cortical and myogenic activity
(Picton et al. 1977).
Method and material
The subjects were 16 y o u n g adults, aged
16--33, all with normal hearing (thresholds
less than 15 dB, 250--8000 Hz, ANSI, 1969).
None had a history of neurologic or serious
otologic disorder. All testing was carried out
in a double-walled s o u n d p r o o f r o o m (IAC),
with the subjects reclining. Most slept at least
briefly during the experiment. All subjects
were paid for their time.
Silver cup electrodes, filled with conductive
jelly, were fixed to abraded skin with collo-
dion. Electrode-pair resistances were always
under 4000 ~2, typically 1000--2000 ~ . One
active electrode was placed at the vertex and
the ground electrode was on the forehead.
The other active electrode for BSEP was
placed in the midline nuchal region. Middle
AEP was recorded between vertex and y o k e d
earlobe electrodes. The latter was chosen in
an a t t e m p t to minimize myogenic potentials
at the inion and in hopes that any post-auricu-
lar myogenic activity would be attenuated at
the earlobe relative to mastoid placement.
Stimuli were 0.1 msec pulses at a rate of 10/
sec produced b y paired pulse generators.
After attenuation and amplification, pulses
were led to matched TDH-49 earphones pro-
ducing rarefaction clicks. The transduced
pulses produced transients which were mea-
sured using a 0.5 in. (1.27 cm) microphone in
a 6 ml coupler. The oscillograms of these tran-
sients and their spectra are shown in Fig. 2.
BSEP and middle AEP were recorded sim-
ultaneously using t w o separate channels. Each
consisted of a preamplifier, a second custom-
built amplifier (gain = 102), and one channel
of a tape recorder at 3.75 in./sec (9.525 cm/
sec). For BSEP, preamplifier filter settings
were 1 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 Hz, and the direct record
mode of the tape deck was used. For middle
AEP, the bandpass was 10--300 Hz, and the
306
d B _:
.50-J I binaural at 67 dB peSPL (hereafter, the low
I I I I I f I I
0 ,5
y-
FREQUENCY (KHz)
I I
O. 5 m sec
Fig. 2. Above: spectrum o f stimulus, as transduced by
TDH-49 earphone. Peak energy is at 3640 Hz. Below:
acoustic wave form of stimulus for right and left ear-
phones; a downward deflection indicates rarefaction.
FM channel was used. Filter slopes were 6 dB/
octave. The nominal frequency response of
the tape deck at 3.75 in./sec was 50--15,000
Hz for direct mode and 0--1250 Hz for FM
mode. Both the ongoing filtered EEG activity
and the running averaged BSEPs were moni-
tored during each experiment, b u t all data
analysis was performed by reaveraging the
data from tape off-line. For BSEP, dwell time
was 40 #sec; for middle AEP, dwell time was
280/~sec.
R.A. DOBIE, S.J. NORTON
Each subject received at least 6 blocks of
stimuli; each block lasted 4 min, with 2048
responses per block. The first 3 stimulus
blocks were right monaural, left monaural,
and binaural, in random order across subjects.
The second 3 stimulus blocks were simply a
replication b u t in reverse order. Click inten-
sity was 97 dB peSPL referred to a 3 kHz
tone (65--70 dB SL). This level will be
referred to as the high intensity level subse-
quently. In addition, 7 subjects received an
additional 3 stimulus blocks: right, left and
I
I0 intensity level).
Data analysis was carried o u t after off-line
averaging of the responses. For each condi-
tion, the dependent variables were the ampli-
tudes and latencies of response peaks. For
BSEP, the vertex positive peaks II through VI
and the subsequent vertex negative peaks
(arbitrarily .named II' through VI', omitting
the negative peak between IV and V which is
often absent) were measured; for middle AEP,
the peaks selected for measurement were
those conventionally labeled No, Po, Na, Pa,
and Nb (Goldstein and R o d m a n 1967). For
each set of 3 stimulus blocks, in addition to
the measurement of peaks in the raw traces, a
derived trace (P) was generated b y summing
the appropriate monaural responses; its peaks
were measured in the same way. For BSEP,
the peaks in the difference trace (D = B -- P)
were also measured. Analysis of variance was
carried out for each dependent variable, i.e.,
the amplitudes and latencies of each response
peak. The first analysis performed compared
monaural responses, i.e., right versus left. No
significant differences were found, and these
data will not be presented. The second anal-
ysis of variance compared the B and the P
conditions as well as any differences between
the first and second replication at the high
intensity level. No order effects were found
and the data from the t w o replications were
collapsed for purposes of calculating the
group means and standard errors which are
plotted in the ensuing figures. N o t all peaks
were measurable in every trace. However,
BINAURAL INTERACTION IN EVOKED POTENTIALS 307

after wave III, there were no more than two I 10

missing data points for any peak across all
subjects.

Results

Fig. 3 shows the replicated BSEP traces in

the high intensity condition for one subject.
The general similarity of the B traces to the P
traces is notable. The two D traces calculated
by subtracting the P from the B traces are
shown in the lower portion of the figure; they
are characterized by two positive and two
negative peaks. The general morphology of

.13Z - ' ~
STIM
ART Tr TIT [

Io.5~v

0 251~V
I m sec

Fig. 4. Difference traces, representing derived binau-

ral interaction, for 16 normal subjects; conditions as
described for Fig. 3.

P,
Io.25/~v
Nt
1 I
I rn s e c
Fig. 3. Binaural interaction in h u m a n BSEP. Sum of
monaural responses (P) compared to binaurally
evoked responses (B). Difference trace (D) calculated
by subtracting P from B (note different scale for
response amplitude). Stimuli were 0.1 msee clicks at
97 dB peSPL (high-intensity condition), 10/sec, N =
2048 for each of two replications for each condition.
'Stim Art' = stimulus artifact.
the D trace was reminiscent of that seen in
guinea pig BSEP (Fig. 1), and the response
peaks have been similarly named. However,
the first negative peak (NI) occurred later in
the human response; its latency was about 6.0
msec compared to 3.5--4.0 msec in the guinea
pig. Inspection of the D traces for all 16 sub-
jects (Fig. 4) revealed that most showed
responses of the same general type. Although
there was considerable individual variability,
28 of the 32 traces (in 15 of 16 subjects)
showed an identifiable N1 whose latency, for
a given subject, always was intermediate
between the latencies of peaks V and V' in
the B trace.
308 R.A. DOBIE, S.J. NORTON

4-
,3--
]I ~ " .3-
.2-- ! p, '. .2-
.t- 3-
O- 0-
:l-- N2
>
--.P_-- ~-~-:2 -
]K' N,3-
0 PREDICTED
[ ] PREDICTE0
• BINAUflAL
=5- • BINAURAL g-15-
~--.6-- DtFFERENCE
DIFFERENCE
117-- LOW INTEN~TY / B.5.E.P.
< :7- HIGH INTENISCTYIB.S.E.P.
-18- --'8--
<9- --19--
-LO - --fO --

-LI-

-12 -
-15 - ,~ 2.% 3'.0 .Io ~o ~ ~'o ~o 9:0
LATENCY (rn sec}

LATENCY tm sec)
Fig. 5. Group mean amplitudes and latencies for bin-
aurally evoked BSEP (binaural), the sum of the mon-
aurally evoked responses (predicted), and the differ-
ence trace in the high-intensity condition (N -- 16).
Peak-labeling convention is as seen in Fig. 3. The
height of each rectangle represents twice the standard
error of the mean for response amplitude; the width
represents twice the S.E.M. for latency. Mean ampli-
tude and latency for each response peak is at the cen-
ter of the appropriate rectangle.
Fig. 6. Group mean amplitudes and latencies for bin-
aural, predicted and difference traces in the low-
intensity BSEP condition (N = 7).
p e a k N2 w a s identifiable in o n l y 20 o f 32
traces.
G r o u p data for t h e 7 subjects w h o r e c e i v e d
t h e l o w i n t e n s i t y clicks as well are s h o w n in
Fig. 6. There w a s a generalized decrease in

P0
P e a k a m p l i t u d e s a n d l a t e n c i e s for t h e B a n d
P traces, in t h e h i g h - i n t e n s i t y c o n d i t i o n , are
s h o w n in Fig. 5. E a c h p e a k is r e p r e s e n t e d b y a
P° I o.2 v
rectangle w h o s e c e n t e r r e p r e s e n t s t h e g r o u p
m e a n for a m p l i t u d e and l a t e n c y . T h e h e i g h t
a n d w i d t h o f t h e r e c t a n g l e s represent standard
errors o f :the m e a n s f o r a m p l i t u d e s and laten-
N0 Nb
cies, r e s p e c t i v e l y . It can be seen by inspec-
t i o n , and w a s c o n f i r m e d in t h e analysis o f
variance, t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o significant differ-
e n c e s (P > 0 . 0 5 ) b e t w e e n t h e peak values for
t h e B and P traces. T h e r e is a s u g g e s t i o n o f
D
slightly earlier latencies in t h e B trace for all
p e a k s after p e a k IV, b u t n o n e o f t h e s e differ-
e n c e s w a s individually significant.
T h e m e a n data for t h e p e a k s in t h e D trace
are p l o t t e d in t h e s a m e figure, N o t e that t h e l l
p e a k d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r w i t h latencies w h i c h 5 m sec
are in every case i n t e r m e d i a t e b e t w e e n t h o s e
Fig. 7. Binaural interaction in h u m a n middle-latency
o f t h e r e s p o n s e p e a k s in t h e r a w B S E P traces. auditory evoked potentials, in the high-intensity con-
P e a k s P1 and N1 w e r e e a c h identifiable in 2 8 dition. Response labeling (B, P, D) and stimulus
o f 32 D traces; p e a k P2 w a s s e e n in 2 7 , w h i l e parameters are as described for Fig. 3.
BINAURAL INTERACTION IN EVOKED POTENTIALS 309

~ P
B
p5
I0
/
P.

x\\ \
0 PR~OPCTEO
• B4N~U"AL
HIGH PP~TgNSIT¥
I

I,~v
''\ ' "

:
' 2 / \ 1
" \\

I I
I 0 m sec
-2o 1."
Fig. 8. Binaural interaction typical of that seen in 4 T } T I ~ I I I I I I T
~ T I i0 I ~ 2[0 ~0 I I I ~ U ]
subjects with middle-latency responses thought to be
LATENCY (m sec)
myogenic (see text). Note large amplitude (>8 pV)
and early latency (15--20 msec) of presumed myo-
Fig. 9. Group mean amplitudes and latencies for bin-
genic response.
aural, predicted and difference traces in the high-
intensity middle-latency response condition (N = 12).
Peak-labeling convention is as seen in Fig. 7.

amplitude and increase in latency as would be

expected with the 30 dB decrease in stimulus
intensity, b u t the pattern of interaction was
essentially identical to that seen with the
more intense click.
Fig. 7 shows middle AEP in the high-inten-
sity condition for a typical subject. The ear-
liest part of the binaural response was pre-
dicted by summation of the monaural
responses. However, the later waves in the
response, particularly Pa, showed considerable
interaction. The amplitude and latency of P~
were considerably reduced in the B trace com-
pared to the P trace.
This pattern was consistently seen in 12 of
the 16 subjects and was quite clear-cut in
each. The other 4 subjects had atypical
responses, both qualitatively and quantita-
tively. An example is shown in Fig. 8. These
responses were characterized by an early
biphasic potential which had a larger ampli-
t u d e and a shorter latency than is typical for
the N~Pa complex in the middle AEP. In each
case, the positive peak of this complex had a
latency less than 24 msec, while none of the
other 12 subjects showed Pa latency of less
than 28 msec. The t y p e of BI seen in this sub-
group was also different; the response to bin-
aural stimuli was in each case much larger
than the sum of the monaural responses. Both
the brief latency and this unusual pattern of
interaction suggested that the responses in
these cases were dominated by post-auricular
myogenic potentials (Thornton 1975). These
4 subjects were not included in the group sta-
tistical calcula$ions.
The group mean data for the 12 remaining
subjects in the high-intensity middle A E R
condition are shown in Fig. 9. Pa amplitude
was markedly reduced in the B trace when
compared to the P trace (F(1, 11) = 55.4, P <
0.01). In addition, the latency of Pa in the
binaural condition was significantly reduced
(F(1, 11) = 5 . 1 2 , P < 0.05).
Fig. 10 shows the group mean data for the
low-intensity condition. The expected
increase in latency and decrease in response
amplitude is seen, b u t the pattern of BI was
similar to that in the high-intensity condition.
As before, P~ amplitude is significantly
reduced in the binaural condition (F(1, 51) =
9.73, P < 0.05). However, under these stim-
ulus conditions, binaural Pa latency was not
different from that predicted b y monaural
summation.
310
2.0
1.5 j P~
1.0 :
.5-
i/il
LU O"
d_:5-
:
-I.0 :
-15
-2.0
f I l I I f I I
ro
Fig. 10. Group mean amplitudes and latencies for bin-
aural, predicted and difference traces in the low-
intensity middle-latency response condition (N = 6).
Discussion
BI similar to that seen in the guinea pig
(Dobie and Berlin 1979) was demonstrated in
BSEP in the majority of subjects. In humans,
BI occurred later in the response (about
6 msec) and showed considerably more varia-
bility than in the guinea pig. There are several
possible explanations for this. Guinea pig
BSEP amplitudes are typically several pV
compared to the sub-microvolt levels seen in
humans; this is p r e s u m a b l y because of differ-
ences in brain and skull anatomy. Higher sig-
nal-to-noise ratios in guinea pigs lead to
'cleaner' responses even when fewer samples
are averaged. In addition, the guinea pigs were
anesthetized, which contributed to the stabil-
ity of the recordings. Innate species differ-
ences must be considered; the large difference
in brain stem size may account for some of
the latency difference. In addition, if binaural
integrative functions in man were attributable
to sites which were 'higher' and more distrib-
uted along the ascending auditory pathway
than in the guinea pig, one might expect to
see BI in evoked potentials showing longer
latencies and less coherence. Of course, the
longer latency of the BI potential in humans
R.A. DOBIE, S.J. NORTON
rl
is not necessarily attributable to interaction at
/ / ~ [] PRE~CTEO a higher site; this could represent third-order
(or higher) activity at any level central to the
MID~)LE A.E.P.
cochlear nuclei.
Parametric differences (particularly in stim-
ulus spectrum) may also explain some of this
difference. Broad-band clicks delivered to
TDH-49 earphones were used in both experi-
ments, b u t the stereotaxic ear bar system used
N No N= to couple the sound source to the guinea pig's
ear canal introduced large tube resonances at
approximately 750 and 1500 Hz. This was a
I I I I I I [ I I I I I I I l I considerably different spectrum than that
20 30 40
LATENCY (m sec) delivered to the human subjects. It is possible
that the degree of BI seen in BSEP is a func-
tion of stimulus spectrum; this hypothesis is
being studied currently in our laboratory.
In humans, the peak measurements of bin-
aurally evoked BSEP are accurately predicted
by simple summation of monaural responses.
In the group mean data, there were no signifi-
cant differences for amplitude or latency for
any of the response peaks in BSEP. The BI
was apparent only when the D traces were
examined. The peaks in these D traces (i.e.,
the largest differences between the B and P
traces) occurred invariably with latencies
which were intermediate between those of the
response peaks in the raw BSEP; this is
exactly what one would expect if the interac-
tion were expressed primarily as a small
latency shift.
BI was also seen in middle AEP. There was
no interaction in the early portion of this
response, which presumably reflects the same
neural activity seen in the BSEP as filtered
with a lower bandpass. However, in both the
high- and low-intensity conditions, the ampli-
tude of peak Pa in the B trace was consider-
ably less than predicted b y summation of the
monaural responses. This we interpret as con-
sistent with a neural response in which there
is some overlap of elements responding in the
left and right monaural conditions.
For both BSEP and middle AEP, the pat-
terns of BI were identical in the h i g h - a n d
low-intensity conditions. This effectively rules
o u t acoustic crossover as an important arti-
BINAURAL INTERACTION IN EVOKED POTENTIALS
fact, since the low-intensity clicks were only
a b o u t 35--40 dB above the subjects' thresh-
olds.
Four subjects showed middle AEPs which
were qualitatively different. These were
believed to be primarily myogenic on the
basis of their latency and amplitude character-
istics. The pattern of BI seen here was also
consistent with a myogenic response near
threshold: small increments in stimulus inten-
sity (in this case, binaural versus monaural)
resulted in large increases in response ampli-
tude. A steep growth function is characteristic
of the post-auricular myogenic response (Pic-
t o n et al. 1977). In retrospect, a more appro-
priate site for the reference electrode, to
avoid myogenic potentials, might have been
the anterior neck, over the larynx.
BI is an important aspect of the function of
the auditory nervous system at brain stem and
higher levels; in human subjects, BI can be
demonstrated in both BSEP and middle AEP.
If the problems of individual variability dis-
cussed above can be solved, tests such as these
could become useful in clinical settings.
Summary
Binaural interaction (BI) in auditory
evoked potentials was defined as any devia-
tion from the predictions of a model which
assumes two independent populations of neu-
rons whose o u t p u t s are, in the far field, sim-
ply additive. Monaural responses are added to
yield the model's prediction of binaurally
evoked response; this trace is then subtracted
from the actual binaural response to yield a
difference trace which is considered to repre-
sent BI. In a previous study, strong BI was
seen in guinea pig BSEP, maximal at a b o u t
4 msec latency; the interaction was greatest for
simultaneous (At = 0) stimuli of equal inten-
sity (AI = 0).
Sixteen normal y o u n g adults had BSEP and
middle-latency auditory evoked potentials
(middle AEP) recorded in response to binau-
ral and monaural clicks. Although BI (in the
311
6 msec latency region) was observed in the
difference trace for the majority of subjects'
BSEP, there were no significant differences
between binaural and predicted-binaural
responses in the group means for individual
peak amplitudes and latencies.
In middle AEP, the amplitude of peak Pa
was usually much smaller in binaurally evoked
responses than in the predicted-binaural
response. Four subjects had middle AEP
which were felt to be predominantly myo-
genic on the basis of short latency and large
amplitude; these responses demonstrated a
reverse pattern of interaction, with binaural
responses much larger than the monaural
sums.
R~sum~
Interaction binaurale duns les potentiels
dvoqugs auditifs
L'interaction binaurale (BI) duns les poten-
tiels ~voqu~s auditifs est d~finie c o m m e toute
d~viation des predictions d'un module qui
postule deux populations ind~pendantes de
neurones dont les sorties seraient, ~ distance,
simplement additives. Les r~ponses monau-
rules sont additionn~es pour aboutir ~ la pr~-
diction du module de la r~ponse ~voqu~e de
fa~on binaurale; cette trace est ensuite sous-
traite de la r~ponse binaurale r~elle pour con-
duire au trac~ d'une difference qui est consi-
d~r~e representer la BI. Duns une ~tude ant~-
rieure, une BI forte a ~t~ observ~e duns le
BSEP du cobaye, maximale ~ une latence
d'environ 4 msec: l'interaction est plus grande
pour des stimulus simultan~s {At = 0) d'inten-
sit~ ~gale (AI = 0).
Seize jeunes adultes normaux ont ~t~ enre-
gistr~s en ce qui concerne les BSEP et les
potentiels ~voqu~s auditifs de latence moy-
enne (AEP moyen) en r~ponse ~ des clics
binauraux et monauraux. Bien que la BI (duns
la zone de latence de 6 msec) soit observ~e
duns le trac~ de difference duns la majorit~
des BSEP des sujets, il n'y a pus de difference
312
significative entre les r~ponses binaurales et
les r~ponses binaurales prddites darts les moy-
ennes de groupe en ce qui concerne les ampli-
tudes et les latences de pics individuelles. Pour
les AEP moyens, l'amplitude du pic Pa est
habituellement beaucoup plus petite dans les
r~ponses ~voqudes de fa~on binaurale que
dans la r~ponse binaurale pr~dite. Quatre
sujets ont des AEP moyens qui sont supposes
~tre de faqon pr~dominante myog~niques sur
la base d'une latence courte et d'une ampli-
tude dlevde; ces rdponses montrent un mode
inverse d'interaction, les r~ponses binaurales
~tant plus grandes que les sommes des
rdponses monaurales.
We thank Dr. Charles I. Berlin for his advice and
encouragement and Dr. Larry Hughes and Charles
Weisendanger for their help with the statistical anal-
ysis. Drs. Josef Miller, Jack Cullen, Ted Glattke and
Craig Wier read earlier drafts of this paper and made
helpful suggestions. The data were collected while the
senior author was a post-doctoral fellow at the Kresge
Hearing Research Laboratory of the South, Louisiana
State University Medical Center, New Orleans, La.,
U.S.A.
References
Achor, L.J. Field analysis of auditory brainstem
responses. Neurosci. Abstr., 1976, 2: 12.
Blegvad, B. Binaural summation of surface-recorded
electrocochle0graphic responses: normal hearing
subjects. Scand. Audiol., 1975, 4: 233--238.
Brugge, J.F., Anderson, D.J. and Aitken, L.
Responses of neurons in the dorsal nucleus of the
lateral lemniscus of the cat to binaural tonal stimu-
lation. J. Neurophysiol., 1970, 33: 441--458.
Buchwald, J.S. and Huang, C.M. Far-field acoustic
responses: origins in the cat. Science, 1975, 189:
382--384.
Casseday, J.H. and Neff, W.D. Auditory localization:
role of auditory pathways in the brainstem of the
cat. J. Neurophysiol., 1975, 38: 842--858.
Clopton, B.M. Binaural interaction component of the
brainstem evoked response. Exp. Neurol., 1979, in
press.
Dobie, R.A. and Berlin, C.I. Binaural interaction in
brainstem evoked responses. Arch. Otolaryngol.,
1979, 105: 391--398.
Erulkar, S.C. The responses o f single units o f the infe-
rior colliculus of the cat to acoustic stimuli. Proc.
roy. Soc. B, 1959, 150: 335--336.
R.A. DOBIE, S.J. NORTON
Galambos, R., Schwartzkopf, J. and Rupert, A.
Microelectrode study of the superior olivary nu-
clei. Amer. J. Physiol., 1959, 197: 527--536.
Gerken, G.M., Moushegian, G., Stillman, R.D. and
Rupert, A.L. Human frequency following
responses to monaural and binaural stimuli. Elec-
troenceph, clin. Neurophysiol., 1975, 38:
397--386.
Goldstein, R. and Rodman, L.B. Early components of
averaged evoked responses to rapidly repeated
auditory stimuli. J. Speech Hearing Res., 1967,
10: 697--705.
Hall, J. Binaural interaction in the accessory superior
olivary nucleus of the cat. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.,
1965, 37: 814--823.
Hind, J.E., Goldberg, J.M., Greenwood, D.D. and
Rose, J.E. Some discharge characteristics of single
neurons in the inferior colliculus of the cat. II.
Timing of the discharges and observations of bin-
aural stimuli. J. Neurophysiol., 1963, 26:
321--341.
Huang, C.M. and Buchwald, J.S. Interpretation of the
vertex short-latency acoustic response: a study of
single neurons in the brain stem. Brain Res., 1977,
137: 291--303.
Huang, C.M. and Buchwald, J.S. Factors that affect
amplitude and latency of vertex short-latency
acoustic responses in the cat. Electroenceph. clin.
Neurophysiol., 1978, 44: 179--186.
Jerger, J. Audiological manifestations of lesions in the
auditory nervous system. Laryngoscope, 1960a,
70: 417--425.
Jerger, J. Observations on auditory behavior in lesions
of the central auditory pathways. Arch. Otolar-
yngol., 1960b, 71: 797--806.
Lehman, A.L. and Hafter, E.R. Responses of inferior
colliculus neurons to free field auditory stimuli.
Exp. Neurol., 1972, 35: 431--449.
Mast, T. Binaural interaction and contralateral inhibi-
tion in the dorsal cochlear nucleus of chinchilla. J.
Neurophysiol., 1970, 33: 108--117.
Masterton, B., Jane, J.A. and Diamond, I.T. The role
of brainstem auditory structures in sound localiza-
tion. I. Trapezoid body, superior olive, and lateral
lemniscus. J. Neurophysiol., 1967, 30: 341--359.
Masterton, B., Jane, J.A. and Diamond, I.T. The role
of brainstem auditory structure in sound localiza-
tion. II. Inferior colliculus and its brachium. J.
Neurophysiol., 1968, 31: 96--108.
Matzger, J. Two new methods for assessment of cen-
tral auditory function in cases of brain disease.
Ann. Otol. (St. Louis), 1959, 68: 1185--1197.
M~ller, K. and Blegvad, B. Brainstem responses in
patients with sensorineural hearing loss. Scand.
Audiol., 1976, 5: 115--127.
Nilsson, R., Liden, G., Rosen, M. and Zoller, M.
Directional hearing, three different test methods.
Scand. Audiol., 1973, 2: 125--131.
BINAURAL INTERACTION IN EVOKED POTENTIALS
Olsen, W.O., Noffsinger, D. and Carhart, R. Masking
level differences encountered in clinical popula-
tions. Audiology, 1976, 15: 287--301.
Peters, J.F. and Mendel, M.I. Early components of
averaged EEG response to monaural and binaural
stimuli. Audiology, 1974, 13: 195--204.
Picton, T.W., Woods, D.L., Baribeau-Braun, J. and
Healey, T.M.G. Evoked potential audiometry. J.
Otolaryngol., 1977, 6 : 90--119.
Skinner, P. and Shimota, J. Binaural summation and
the early components of the auditory electroen-
313
cephalic response. J. audit. Res., 1972, 12: 32~35.
Stockard, J.J. and Rossiter, V.S. Clinical and patho-
logic correlates of brainstem auditory response
abnormalities. Neurology (Minneap.), 1977, 27:
316--325.
Thornton, A.R.D. The use of post-auricular muscle
responses. J. Laryng., 1975, 89: 997--1010.
Van Olphen, A.F., Rodenburg, M. and Verwey, C.
Distribution of brainstem responses to acoustic
stimuli over the human scalp. Audiology, 1978,
17: 511--518.