Elsevier

Hearing Research

Volume 363, June 2018, Pages 119-135
Hearing Research

Research Paper
Addressing variability in the acoustic startle reflex for accurate gap detection assessment

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2018.03.013Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The ASR is variable, and this variation can contribute to “messy” GPIAS data.

  • Careful consideration of ITI, sex, circadian, and sensory adaptation factors can reduce ASR variation.

  • Preceding gaps can inhibit and facilitate the startle response which needs to be appropriately addressed in data analysis.

  • The benefits and limitations of several GPIAS analyses are considered for tinnitus assessment.

Abstract

The acoustic startle reflex (ASR) is subject to substantial variability. This inherent variability consequently shapes the conclusions drawn from gap-induced prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex (GPIAS) assessments. Recent studies have cast doubt as to the efficacy of this methodology as it pertains to tinnitus assessment, partially, due to variability in and between data sets. The goal of this study was to examine the variance associated with several common data collection variables and data analyses with the aim to improve GPIAS reliability. To study this the GPIAS tests were conducted in adult male and female CBA/CaJ mice. Factors such as inter-trial interval, circadian rhythm, sex differences, and sensory adaptation were each evaluated. We then examined various data analysis factors which influence GPIAS assessment. Gap-induced facilitation, data processing options, and assessments of tinnitus were studied. We found that the startle reflex is highly variable in CBA/CaJ mice, but this can be minimized by certain data collection factors. We also found that careful consideration of temporal fluctuations of the ASR and controlling for facilitation can lead to more accurate GPIAS results. This study provides a guide for reducing variance in the GPIAS methodology – thereby improving the diagnostic power of the test.

Introduction

A reliable animal model of tinnitus is a prerequisite for tinnitus related therapies. Due to its relatively minor time commitment gap-induced prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex (GPIAS) has quickly become one of the predominant behavioral assessments for tinnitus (Turner et al., 2006) in several animal models (see Eggermont, 2013; Hayes et al., 2014; Galazyuk and Hébert, 2015). Many groups have used GPIAS to behaviorally assess tinnitus in rats (Turner et al., 2006; Lobarinas et al., 2013; Singer et al., 2013; Ropp et al., 2014), mice (Longenecker and Galazyuk, 2011; Middleton et al., 2011; Hickox and Liberman, 2014; Lowe and Walton, 2015; Yu et al., 2016), guinea pigs (Dehmel et al., 2012; Berger et al., 2013), and hamsters (Salloum et al., 2016). However, some uncertainty of this method is rooted in a lack of consistency of methodologies and data assessment strategies across labs (Galazyuk and Hébert, 2015). While the acoustic startle reflex (Landis and Hunt, 1939; Fleshler, 1965), prepulse inhibition (Hoffman and Searle, 1965; Ison and Hammond, 1971; Carlson and Willott, 1996; Swerdlow et al., 2001), and gap-induced prepulse inhibition (Ison, 1982) have been studied for decades, many of the specifics of stimuli, hardware, technical, and analytic information related to tinnitus detection have not yet been solidified. For this reason, we have previously addressed some hardware and stimulus presentation issues (Longenecker and Galazyuk, 2012), as well an in-depth analysis of the startle response (Grimsley et al., 2015). Although these initial steps have improved the confidence of GPIAS assessments, the finer details concerning data collection and data analysis, as they specifically relate to tinnitus assessment, need further attention.

GPIAS studies have largely neglected to provide details on data collection when assessing tinnitus in laboratory animals. However, many aspects of these approaches can dramatically affect conclusions of GPIAS experiments. This is especially true for animals that have high startle reflex variability (Berger et al., 2013; Longenecker and Galazyuk, 2016; Salloum et al., 2016). Limiting ASR variability is critical in a repeated measure designs which compare an animal's performance before and after a tinnitus-inducing experimental treatment. Several factors influencing the ASR should be considered in order to control the inherent variability. These include issues that pertain to inter-trial intervals (ITI) (Ison and Hammond, 1971; Leitner et al., 1993; Willott and Carlson, 1995; Plappert et al., 2004), circadian rhythm (Chabot and Taylor, 1992a; Chabot and Taylor, 1992b), sex differences (Plappert et al., 2005; Koch, 1998), and sensory adaptation. A change to any of these factors can alter the startle response magnitude and startle response variability. These issues could be magnified when assessing the gap detection abilities in noise exposed animals, due to a suppressive effect of acoustic over-exposure on startle magnitude (Longenecker and Galazyuk, 2011; Lobarinas et al., 2013). Standardizing data collection efforts could decrease GPIAS data variability between animals, experiments, and lab groups.

One of the major confounds in GPIAS data analysis is gap-induced facilitation. A gap in a continuous background noise usually inhibits or reduces the startle response magnitude (Stitt et al., 1973; Ison, 1982). However, this is not always the case. Depending on stimulus conditions, a prepulse, gap, or alterations of the background noise can alternatively act as a facilitator of the startle reflex in mice (Plappert et al., 2004; Willott and Carlson, 1995), rats (Stitt et al., 1974; Ison et al., 1997), and humans (Aasen et al., 2005). While it is not fully understood why this dichotomy exists, both responses represent real sensory gating phenomenon but likely have separate complimentary biological circuit (Schmajuk and Larrauri, 2005). Thus, GPIAS assessments should be cognizant of this issue when examining “how well” an animal can detect a gap. If not appropriately addressed during data analysis, facilitation can limit the effectiveness of GPIAS as a tool to assess gap detection performance because of unnecessary variability. The exact details of data processing can also significantly affect GPIAS data interpretation. Unfortunately, this part of data analysis is typically neglected in method sections of the relevant papers. Nevertheless, details such as which data points are included/excluded, how many testing sessions/days were used in the control and experimental conditions, how ratios were calculated and/or averaged together, are critical to draw defendable conclusions based on GPIAS data.

Our results indicate that ITI, circadian cycle, sex, and sensory adaptation all play roles in the degree of variance present in GPIAS experiments. Our data also suggest that particular data analyses are critical to minimize the effect of variance in GPIAS data. Taken together, these findings suggest that the GPIAS method is more complicated than previously described, but can provide accurate assessments of gap detection performance.

Section snippets

Subjects

A total of 62 CBA/CaJ mice were used in this study. Group A contained fourteen male mice which were used in the majority of experiments. Group B contained an additional 48 mice (24 males and 24 females) which were used in the sex-based variation experiments. In group A, mice were divided into two groups of seven and were housed in separate rooms: seven of these mice were housed in a regular light dark cycle (lights on 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.) (inactive mice) and other seven were kept in a reverse

Data collection

Mice are known to have a highly variable ASR. To minimize the impact of this variability on experimental results, it is beneficial to identify experimental manipulations which might contribute to this variability. Mice were tested over multiple sessions to assess the amount of ASR variability caused by: ITI, circadian rhythm, sex differences, and sensory adaptation.

Current state of GPIAS for tinnitus assessment

Despite its popularity as a methodology for tinnitus assessment (Eggermont, 2013; Hayes et al., 2014; Galazyuk and Hébert, 2015), the GPIAS method is not well developed for several reasons. First, scientists who routinely use this method for tinnitus assessment rarely describe specific details of data collection and data analysis. Second, the major stimulus parameters used for GPIAS are not well justified. Criteria and statistical verification of the presence of tinnitus-like behavior, even

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare this research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Dr. Merri Rosen for her comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. The authors also thank Olga Galazyuk for developing software that allowed off-line data analysis. This research was supported by grant R01 DC011330 to AVG from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders of the U.S. Public Health Service.

References (91)

  • W.P. Jordan et al.

    Long- and short-term habituation of acoustic startle is not frequency specific in the rat

    Physiol. Behav.

    (1998)
  • M. Koch et al.

    The acoustic startle response in rats- circuits mediating evocation, inhibition and potentiation

    Behav. Brain Res.

    (1997)
  • M. Koch

    Sensorimotor gating changes across the estrous cycle in female rats

    Psysiol. Behav.

    (1998)
  • M. Koch

    The neurobiology of startle

    Prog. Neurobiol.

    (1999)
  • K.S. Kraus et al.

    Relationship between noise-induced hearing loss, persistent tinnitus and growth-associated protein-43 expression in the rat cochlear nucleus: does synaptic plasticity in ventral cochlear nucleus suppress tinnitus?

    Neuroscience

    (2011)
  • E. Lobarinas et al.

    The gap-startle paradigm for tinnitus screening in animal models: limitations and optimization

    Hear. Res.

    (2013)
  • R.J. Longenecker et al.

    Methodological optimization of tinnitus assessment using prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex

    Brain Res.

    (2012)
  • R.J. Longenecker et al.

    Prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex vs. auditory brainstem response for hearing assessment

    Hear. Res.

    (2016)
  • K. Ludewig et al.

    The acoustic startle reflex and its modulation: effects of age and gender in humans

    Biol. Psychol.

    (2003)
  • M.Á. Pérez et al.

    Repeated restraint stress impairs auditory attention and GABAergic synaptic efficacy in the rat auditory cortex

    Neuroscience

    (2013)
  • C.F. Plappert et al.

    Factors governing prepulse inhibition and prepulse facilitation of the acoustic startle response in mice

    Behav. Brain Res.

    (2004)
  • C.F. Plappert et al.

    Long-term habituation of the startle response in mice evoked by acoustic and tactile stimuli

    Behav. Brain Res.

    (2005)
  • C.F. Plappert et al.

    Effects of sex and estrous cycle on modulation of the acoustic startle response in mice

    Physiol. Behav.

    (2005)
  • R.H. Salloum et al.

    Untangling the effects of tinnitus and hypersensitivity to sound (hyperacusis) in the gap detection test

    Hear. Res.

    (2016)
  • N.R. Swerdlow et al.

    Changes in sensorimotor inhibition across the menstrual cycle: implications for neuropsychiatric disorders

    Biol. Psychiatr.

    (1997)
  • B.K. Yee et al.

    The expression of prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle reflex as a function of three pulse stimulus intensities, three prepulse stimulus intensities, and three levels of startle responsiveness in C57BL6/J mice

    Behav. Brain Res.

    (2005)
  • I. Aasen et al.

    Sex effects in prepulse inhibition and facilitation of the acoustic startle response: implications for pharmacological and treatment studies

    J. Psychopharmacol.

    (2005)
  • P.D. Allen et al.

    Reflex modification audiometry reveals dual roles for olivocochlear neurotransmission

    Front. Cell. Neurosci.

    (2017)
  • J.W. Blaszczyk

    Startle response to short acoustic stimuli in rats

    Acta Neurobiol. Exp.

    (2003)
  • T.D. Blumenthal et al.

    Stimulus rise time, intensity, and bandwidth effects on acoustic startle amplitude and probability

    Psychophysiology

    (1986)
  • T.D. Blumenthal et al.

    Prepulse rise time and startle reflex modification: different effects for discrete and continuous prepulses

    Psychophysiology

    (1989)
  • A.E. Bullock et al.

    Inbred mouse strains differ in the regulation of the startle and prepulse inhibition of the startle response

    Behav. Neurosci.

    (1997)
  • S.L. Byers et al.

    Mouse estrous cycle identification tool and images

    PLoS One

    (2012)
  • J. Campolo et al.

    Does tinnitus “fill in” the silent gaps?

    Noise Health

    (2013)
  • C.C. Chabot et al.

    Circadian Modulation of the rat acoustic startle response

    Behav. Neurosci.

    (1992)
  • K. Charitidi et al.

    Estradiol treatment and hormonal fluctuations during the estrous cycle modulate the expression of estrogen receptors in the auditory system and the prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle response

    Neuroendocrinology

    (2012)
  • K.M. Crofton et al.

    Evidence for involvement of associative conditioning in reflex modification of the acoustic startle response with gaps in background noise

    Pyschobiology

    (1990)
  • P.A. Csomor et al.

    On the influence of baseline startle reactivity on the indexation of prepulse inhibition

    Behav. Neurosci.

    (2008)
  • M. Davis

    Effects of intersimulus interval length and variability on startle-response habituation in the rat

    J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.

    (1970)
  • M. Davis et al.

    Twenty-four-hour periodicity of the startle response in rats

    Psychonomic Sci.

    (1971)
  • M. Davis

    Signal-to-noise ratio as a predictor of startle amplitude and habituation in the rat

    J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.

    (1974)
  • M. Davis et al.

    Plasticity of the acoustic startle response in the acutely decerebrate rat

    J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.

    (1977)
  • M. Davis
  • S. Dehmel et al.

    Gap prepulse inhibition and auditory brainstem-evoked potentials as objective measures for tinnitus in Guinea pigs

    Front. Syst. Neurosci.

    (2012)
  • M. Fleshler

    Adequate acoustic stimulus for startle reaction in the rat

    J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.

    (1965)
  • Cited by (21)

    • Universal automated classification of the acoustic startle reflex using machine learning

      2023, Hearing Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      In all instances animals were given food and water ad libitum in temperature and humidity-controlled vivariums with 12-hour light dark cycles. SR waveforms were collected from a variety of hardware systems and were calibrated with either Brüel and Kjaer or Larson Davis microphones/amplifier equipment (for details on hardware specifications and procedural details please see Fawcett et al., 2020; Lowe and Walton, 2015; Longenecker and Galazyuk, 2012; Longenecker et al., 2018; Lobarinas et al., 2004; Berger et al., 2013; Green et al., 2017). As described above, the acoustic startle reflex is robust and ubiquitous across mammalian species.

    • The blinking eye as a window into tinnitus: A new animal model of tinnitus in the macaque

      2022, Hearing Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      To counteract large variabilities across the scores, we additionally performed a logarithmic transformation, a technique previously suggested in analyzing eyeblink behavior (Ornitz et al., 1986). Indeed, particular modified ratios for correcting this “direction problem” and sophisticated data-processing approaches for generally reducing variability in ASR data have been suggested in the past (Grimsley et al., 2015; Longenecker et al., 2018; Longenecker and Galazyuk, 2012). To the best of our knowledge, our correction formula has not been applied before.

    • A novel arousal-based individual screening reveals susceptibility and resilience to PTSD-like phenotypes in mice

      2021, Neurobiology of Stress
      Citation Excerpt :

      Some mice were further tested two months post-trauma (day 56) in a third ASR session (ASR 3). The post-trauma change of ASR was analyzed both in terms of magnitude and latency and expressed as percentage of ASR baseline because of the high variability among animals (Longenecker et al., 2018). The change of startle magnitude was calculated by using the following formula: [(post-trauma magnitude – baseline magnitude) ×100/baseline magnitude].

    • 2.46 - Tinnitus

      2020, The Senses: A Comprehensive Reference: Volume 1-7, Second Edition
    • Behavioral evaluation of auditory function abnormalities in adult rats with normal hearing thresholds that were exposed to noise during early development

      2019, Physiology and Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      It has been also demonstrated that many factors like hearing loss, sensitivity to background noise or to startle stimuli can change gap-PPI and influence interpretation of test results with respect to the presence of tinnitus [33–35]. In addition to this, a wide range of criteria for positive tinnitus detection has been used across different laboratories and there still is no consensus on a best practice for statistical evaluation of gap-PPI results [36,37]. To make the evaluation of the gap-PPI results more objective, advanced statistical methods should be considered (specifically in mice tinnitus models) [37].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text