Literature DB >> 14514203

Cochlear compression estimates from measurements of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions.

Stephen T Neely1, Michael P Gorga, Patricia A Dorn.   

Abstract

Evidence of the compressive growth of basilar-membrane displacement can be seen in distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) levels measured as a function of stimulus level. When the levels of the two stimulus tones (f1 and f2) are related by the formula L1 = 39 dB + 0.4 x L2 [Kummer et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 3431-3444 (1998)] the shape of the function relating DPOAE level to L2 is similar (up to an L2 of 70 dB SPL) to the classic Fletcher and Munson [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 9, 1-10 (1933)] loudness function when plotted on a logarithmic scale. Explicit estimates of compression have been derived based on recent DPOAE measurements from the laboratory. If DPOAE growth rate is defined as the slope of the DPOAE I/O function (in dB/dB), then a cogent definition of compression is the reciprocal of the growth rate. In humans with normal hearing, compression varies from about 1 at threshold to about 4 at 70 dB SPL. With hearing loss, compression is still about 1 at threshold, but grows more slowly above threshold. Median DPOAE I/O data from ears with normal hearing, mild loss, and moderate loss are each well fit by log functions. When the I/O function is logarithmic, then the corresponding compression is a linear function of stimulus level. Evidence of cochlear compression also exists in DPOAE suppression tuning curves, which indicate the level of a third stimulus tone (f3) that reduces DPOAE level by 3 dB. All three stimulus tones generate compressive growth within the cochlea; however, only the relative compression (RC) of the primary and suppressor responses is observable in DPOAE suppression data. An RC value of 1 indicates that the cochlear responses to the primary and suppressor components grow at the same rate. In normal ears, RC rises to 4, when f3 is an octave below f2. The similarities between DPOAE and loudness compression estimates suggest the possibility of predicting loudness growth from DPOAEs; however, intersubject variability makes such predictions difficult at this time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14514203     DOI: 10.1121/1.1604122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  23 in total

1.  Individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities.

Authors:  Gayla L Poling; Amy R Horwitz; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-09-22

Review 2.  [Diagnostics of the cochlear amplifier by means of DPOAE growth functions].

Authors:  T Janssen
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Fast reverse propagation of sound in the living cochlea.

Authors:  Wenxuan He; Anders Fridberger; Edward Porsov; Tianying Ren
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2010-06-02       Impact factor: 4.033

4.  Effects of relative and absolute frequency in the spectral weighting of loudness.

Authors:  Suyash Narendra Joshi; Marcin Wróblewski; Kendra K Schmid; Walt Jesteadt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Correction of the peripheral spatiotemporal response pattern: a potential new signal-processing strategy.

Authors:  Lu-Feng Shi; Laurel H Carney; Karen A Doherty
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Influence of primary-level and primary-frequency ratios on human distortion product otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Tiffany A Johnson; Stephen T Neely; Cassie A Garner; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Relation of distortion-product otoacoustic emission input-output functions to loudness.

Authors:  Daniel M Rasetshwane; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Low-frequency and high-frequency cochlear nonlinearity in humans.

Authors:  Michael P Gorga; Stephen T Neely; Darcia M Dierking; Judy Kopun; Kristin Jolkowski; Kristin Groenenboom; Hongyang Tan; Bettina Stiegemann
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Comparison of distortion-product otoacoustic emission growth rates and slopes of forward-masked psychometric functions.

Authors:  Joyce Rodríguez; Stephen T Neely; Walt Jesteadt; Hongyang Tan; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Towards a joint reflection-distortion otoacoustic emission profile: Results in normal and impaired ears.

Authors:  Carolina Abdala; Radha Kalluri
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.