Electrophysiological Evidence of Early Cortical Sensitivity to Human Conspecific Mimic Voice as a Distinct Category of Natural Sound.

Purpose From an anthropological perspective of hominin communication, the human auditory system likely evolved to enable special sensitivity to sounds produced by the vocal tracts of human conspecifics whether attended or passively heard. While numerous electrophysiological studies have used stereotypical human-produced verbal (speech voice and singing voice) and nonverbal vocalizations to identify human voice-sensitive responses, controversy remains as to when (and where) processing of acoustic signal attributes characteristic of "human voiceness" per se initiate in the brain. Method To explore this, we used animal vocalizations and human-mimicked versions of those calls ("mimic voice") to examine late auditory evoked potential responses in humans. Results Here, we revealed an N1b component (96-120 ms poststimulus) during a nonattending listening condition showing significantly greater magnitude in response to mimics, beginning as early as primary auditory cortices, preceding the time window reported in previous studies that revealed species-specific vocalization processing initiating in the range of 147-219 ms. During a sound discrimination task, a P600 (500-700 ms poststimulus) component showed specificity for accurate discrimination of human mimic voice. Distinct acoustic signal attributes and features of the stimuli were used in a classifier model, which could distinguish most human from animal voice comparably to behavioral data-though none of these single features could adequately distinguish human voiceness. Conclusions These results provide novel ideas for algorithms used in neuromimetic hearing aids, as well as direct electrophysiological support for a neurocognitive model of natural sound processing that informs both neurodevelopmental and anthropological models regarding the establishment of auditory communication systems in humans. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12903839.

Interlaboratory comparison of agar dilution and Etest methods for determining the MICs of antibiotics used in management of Neisseria meningitidis infections.

Previous studies have shown that there is considerable variation in the methods and media used to determine the susceptibility of Neisseria meningitidis to antimicrobial agents in different countries. In this study, national and regional reference laboratories used a standardized methodology to determine the MICs of antibiotics used in the management of meningococcal infection. Fourteen laboratories participated in the study, determining the susceptibility to penicillin G, rifampin, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, and ofloxacin of a collection of 17 meningococci, of which 11 strains were previously defined as having intermediate resistance to penicillin (Pen(I)) by sequencing and restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of the penA gene. The MIC was determined by agar dilution and Etest with Mueller-Hinton agar (MH), MH supplemented with sheep blood (MH+B), and MH supplemented with heated (chocolated) blood. Several laboratories encountered problems obtaining confluent growth with unsupplemented MH. MH+B was considered to give the most congruent and reproducible results among the study laboratories. The modal MIC for MH+B for each antibiotic and method was calculated to define the MIC consensus, allowing assessment of each individual laboratory's data in relation to the others. The agreement in each antibiotic/method/medium combination was defined as the percentage of laboratories with a result within one dilution of the modal result. For the whole study, an agreement of 90.6% was observed between agar dilution and Etest methods. The agreement in each laboratory/antibiotic/method combination ranged from 98.2% to 69.7%, with six laboratories demonstrating agreement higher than 90% and 11 more than 80%. The ability of the laboratories to detect the Pen(I) isolates ranged from 18.2% to 100%. The apparent difficulty in interpreting susceptibility to rifampin, particularly with the Etest method, is very interesting.