Literature DB >> 18500528

Otoacoustic emissions in humans, birds, lizards, and frogs: evidence for multiple generation mechanisms.

Christopher Bergevin1, Dennis M Freeman, James C Saunders, Christopher A Shera.   

Abstract

Many non-mammalian ears lack physiological features considered integral to the generation of otoacoustic emissions in mammals, including basilar-membrane traveling waves and hair-cell somatic motility. To help elucidate the mechanisms of emission generation, this study systematically measured and compared evoked emissions in all four classes of tetrapod vertebrates using identical stimulus paradigms. Overall emission levels are largest in the lizard and frog species studied and smallest in the chicken. Emission levels in humans, the only examined species with somatic hair cell motility, were intermediate. Both geckos and frogs exhibit substantially higher levels of high-order intermodulation distortion. Stimulus frequency emission phase-gradient delays are longest in humans but are at least 1 ms in all species. Comparisons between stimulus-frequency emission and distortion-product emission phase gradients for low stimulus levels indicate that representatives from all classes except frog show evidence for two distinct generation mechanisms analogous to the reflection- and distortion-source (i.e., place- and wave-fixed) mechanisms evident in mammals. Despite morphological differences, the results suggest the role of a scaling-symmetric traveling wave in chicken emission generation, similar to that in mammals, and perhaps some analog in the gecko.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18500528      PMCID: PMC2562659          DOI: 10.1007/s00359-008-0338-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol        ISSN: 0340-7594            Impact factor:   1.836


  64 in total

1.  Suppression and enhancement of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions by interference tones above f(2). I. Basic findings in rabbits.

Authors:  G K Martin; B B Stagner; D Jassir; F F Telischi; B L Lonsbury-Martin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Physiological vulnerability of distortion product otoacoustic emissions from the amphibian ear.

Authors:  Pim van Dijk; Peter M Narins; Matthew J Mason
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Level dependence of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in the leopard frog, Rana pipiens pipiens.

Authors:  Sebastiaan W F Meenderink; Pim van Dijk
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Sound-induced motions of individual cochlear hair bundles.

Authors:  A J Aranyosi; Dennis M Freeman
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2004-08-17       Impact factor: 4.033

5.  Otoacoustic emissions without somatic motility: can stereocilia mechanics drive the mammalian cochlea?

Authors:  M C Liberman; Jian Zuo; J J Guinan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in frogs: correlation with middle and inner ear properties.

Authors:  Pim van Dijk; Matthew J Mason; Peter M Narins
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Low density of membrane particles in auditory hair cells of lizards and birds suggests an absence of somatic motility.

Authors:  Christine Köppl; Andrew Forge; Geoffrey A Manley
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  2004-11-08       Impact factor: 3.215

8.  The origin of SFOAE microstructure in the guinea pig.

Authors:  Shawn S Goodman; Robert H Withnell; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Stimulus-frequency-emission group delay: a test of coherent reflection filtering and a window on cochlear tuning.

Authors:  Christopher A Shera; John J Guinan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Chick hair cells do not exhibit voltage-dependent somatic motility.

Authors:  David Z Z He; Kirk W Beisel; Lin Chen; Da-Lian Ding; Shuping Jia; Bernd Fritzsch; Richard Salvi
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 5.182

View more
  22 in total

1.  Tectorial membrane morphological variation: effects upon stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Christopher Bergevin; David S Velenovsky; Kevin E Bonine
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2010-08-09       Impact factor: 4.033

2.  Coherent reflection without traveling waves: on the origin of long-latency otoacoustic emissions in lizards.

Authors:  Christopher Bergevin; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Probing cochlear tuning and tonotopy in the tiger using otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Christopher Bergevin; Edward J Walsh; JoAnn McGee; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 1.836

4.  Time-domain demonstration of distributed distortion-product otoacoustic emission components.

Authors:  Glen K Martin; Barden B Stagner; Brenda L Lonsbury-Martin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Obtaining reliable phase-gradient delays from otoacoustic emission data.

Authors:  Christopher A Shera; Christopher Bergevin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Beyond the limits: identifying the high-frequency detectors in the anuran ear.

Authors:  Ariadna Cobo-Cuan; T Ulmar Grafe; Peter M Narins
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 3.703

Review 7.  Mechanics of the frog ear.

Authors:  Pim Van Dijk; Matthew J Mason; Richard L M Schoffelen; Peter M Narins; Sebastiaan W F Meenderink
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-02-10       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Unexpected dynamic up-tuning of auditory organs in day-flying moths.

Authors:  Emanuel C Mora; Ariadna Cobo-Cuan; Frank Macías-Escrivá; Manfred Kössl
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2015-04-19       Impact factor: 1.836

9.  Otoacoustic estimation of cochlear tuning: validation in the chinchilla.

Authors:  Christopher A Shera; John J Guinan; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-05-04

10.  Interactions between hair cells shape spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in a model of the tokay gecko's cochlea.

Authors:  Michael Gelfand; Oreste Piro; Marcelo O Magnasco; A J Hudspeth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.