The auditory brainstem of birds is well studied, and many structures are analogous to the mammalian auditory pathway. The auditory nerve provides excitatory inputs onto the two first-order central nuclei, the cochlear nucleus magnocellularis (NM) and angularis (NA). NM sends an excitatory projection bilaterally to its auditory target, nucleus laminaris (NL)7. NL projects to the nucleus mesencephalicus lateralis, pars dorsalis (MLd)40,41. NL also projects to the superior olivary nucleus (SON), which provides feedback inhibition to NM, NA, and NL42. This lower auditory brainstem microcircuit is exquisitely conserved for the function it subserves, sound localization, and binaural hearing33. The upper auditory brainstem regions of the bird also have nuclei analogous to the mammalian lateral lemniscus and inferior colliculus in the midbrain. Given these similarities, the composition of the avian ABR up to the auditory midbrain is comparable across all vertebrates.
While multiple avian species show three positive peaks within 6 ms following stimulus onset, the correlation of ABR peaks with central auditory structures does has some variability. Wave I can be reasonably assumed to be the first neural response from the peripheral basilar papilla and auditory nerve and displays little variability among individuals (Figure 1C). Subsequent Wave identification is less certain and may differ between species. Kuokkanen et al.17 recently determined that Wave III of the barn owl's ABR is generated by NL; thus, it is reasonable to argue that Wave II originates from NM and NA of the cochlear nucleus20. However, the owl Wave III was defined as the positive peak generated 3 ms after stimulus onset. This corresponds to Wave II as defined in the hatchling chicken ABR. In the barn owl ABR, waves I and II were combined.
While the hatchling chicken usually presented with three peaks within 6 ms, a fourth peak was occasionally observed (e.g., see Figure 1A). Population data, larger sample size, and additional experimental paradigms would be needed to support a fourth wave, and in some cases, a five-wave chicken ABR. The most consistent finding was the three peak representations shown here.
Since the ABR is defined as a measure of neural synchrony, the major nuclei in the auditory pathway could represent each positive-going peak in the ABR. The signal passing from the auditory nerve to NM/NA and then to NL may define Waves I, II, and III in the hatchling chicken ABR, respectively. Additionally, the later occurring fourth peak of the chicken ABR could represent an upper brainstem or midbrain auditory structure. The characterization of avian ABRs should also consider the difference between precocial and altricial birds. The maturation of auditory responses will vary among species and is also affected by other critical traits like predator behavior and/or vocal learning4. Regardless, the methods and techniques described are easily applied to a variety of avian and vertebrate species.
The importance of maintaining animal body temperature is illustrated in Figure 2. As the internal body temperature decreased, the latency of ABR responses increased for the same stimulus intensity level. This is more pronounced when body temperature drops below 32 °C36,37. The roughly 1 ms latency increase in the ABR is less than previously reported in the chicken23. However, Katayama23 used a 12-day old hatchling that was cooled and subsequently warmed over a 4 h period. The data in Figure 2 was recorded during the cooling process over a 20-min period. To acquire the best quality and most consistent recordings, the animal's body temperature must be maintained, and all recordings should be done at the same physiological temperature among animals.
The effect of age on the ABR is slight but important to consider. While only the latency of Waves I and II of the ABR was significantly different, this is in part because only three young hatchlings were used in Figure 3; the other three did not present with three identifiable ABR peaks. ABR amplitude and threshold shifts may also be evident if using large sample sizes or comparing frequency-specific ABRs. This age-related effect could be caused by fluid in the middle ear of the chicken. Such conductive changes lead to a marked increase in ABR thresholds for both human and other mammalian models38,39.
Using two different recording montages, similar responses were observed (Figure 4A). While the most common montage places the reference electrode behind the stimulus receiving ear, having the reference electrode in the neck tissue can be useful if there is surgical intervention accompanying the ABR. However, if two-channel ABR recordings are used, the reference electrodes should be separately and symmetrically placed, which is difficult if placing the reference electrode in the neck. The mastoid position for the reference electrode is recommended to standardize as many aspects of recording as possible. Two-channel ABR recording is an effective tool requiring little extra preparation and results in similar responses between the ears. Minor amplitude differences were likely due to the positioning of the earphone. Two-channel recording allows for easy comparison between an experimentally manipulated ear or brain hemisphere versus a control. This setup would also be required for testing binaural ABRs. Future experiments using the chicken ABR can refer to previous literature on recording configurations and montages34.
This methodology does come with several limitations. As mentioned in step 5.1, poor speculum placement can lead to a 40 dBSPL shift in response. This could cause an incorrect interpretation of a manipulated or modified animal. The following precautions are recommended: acquire a large sample of control data before acquiring the ABRs of manipulated or mutant models. Do not decrease stimulus intensity by more than 20 dBSPL between recordings. If the amplitude or latency shifts more than expected, check on the animal and speculum position. Repeat that ABR stimulus to observe changes. If the speculum has moved, reacquire previous tests. Another limitation is the calibration of ABRs. Without proper calibration to record the sound pressure level, the intensity presented to the animal is unknown. When measuring sound output, use the same speculum as in experimental recording and a small microphone inside a cavity that approximates the animal's ear canal length (~5 mm). Measure the same tone frequencies used in experiments, as calibrations are frequency specific. The manual for both hardware and software systems may come with directions for calibration. There are also additional filters such as linear phase and minimum phase filters, which can improve click and tone burst ABRs43. These filters were not used in the present study. Additional considerations, like the rise and fall time of a tone burst spectral envelope changing as a function of frequency or changing the rise and fall time of the click stimuli was not examined either. These are good future investigations once reliable and consistent ABRs can be acquired.
The comparison of the hatchling chicken to other avian models is promising. Budgerigars and eastern screech-owls also display three positive microvolt peaks within the first 6 ms of the ABR13,22. In different species of woodpeckers, three peaks are seen as well, but their latency is later in time. Additionally, the range of best frequency sensitivity in woodpeckers is between 1500 and 4000 Hz, which is somewhat higher than the chicken's best threshold at 1000 Hz. In the adult chicken, the best sensitivity is at 2000 Hz35, so there may be improved hearing of high frequencies as chicken hatchlings develop into adults. That development will differ among bird species, taking into account the altricial or precocious development of the animal4.
The experimental methods outlined here can help determine what factors lead to detriments or changes in auditory responses and thresholds, as well as studies at different stages of embryonic development. Genetic manipulation, aging, and noise exposure are all known manipulations in animals and other avian models24,25,44,45. These methods should be extended to the chicken model now that techniques like in-ovo electroporation allow for the expression of proteins that are focally and temporally controlled at one side of the auditory brainstem12,46. This permits the direct comparison of ABRs from the genetically manipulated ear to the contralateral control ear using a two-channel recording paradigm.
Overall, the ABR of hatchling chickens is a useful research method, nearly identical to measures of hearing function in human and other mammalian models. It is also a non-invasive, in-vivo methodology. Apart from anesthetic injection and subdermal electrode placement of a few millimeters, no other physical manipulation is required. A hatchling could theoretically be tested multiple times over a developmental time course of days or weeks if kept in an appropriate environment. This protocol not only lays out the necessary steps and recording parameters for the hatchling chicken ABR, but it proposes characteristics of an avian ABR that can inform further testing into auditory brainstem function.