Literature DB >> 25813430

Tuning of SFOAEs Evoked by Low-Frequency Tones Is Not Compatible with Localized Emission Generation.

Karolina K Charaziak1, Jonathan H Siegel.   

Abstract

Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions (SFOAEs) appear to be well suited for assessing frequency selectivity because, at least on theoretical grounds, they originate over a restricted region of the cochlea near the characteristic place of the evoking tone. In support of this view, we previously found good agreement between SFOAE suppression tuning curves (SF-STCs) and a control measure of frequency selectivity (compound action potential suppression tuning curves (CAP-STC)) for frequencies above 3 kHz in chinchillas. For lower frequencies, however, SF-STCs and were over five times broader than the CAP-STCs and demonstrated more high-pass rather than narrow band-pass filter characteristics. Here, we test the hypothesis that the broad tuning of low-frequency SF-STCs is because emissions originate over a broad region of the cochlea extending basal to the characteristic place of the evoking tone. We removed contributions of the hypothesized basally located SFOAE sources by either pre-suppressing them with a high-frequency interference tone (IT; 4.2, 6.2, or 9.2 kHz at 75 dB sound pressure level (SPL)) or by inducing acoustic trauma at high frequencies (exposures to 8, 5, and lastly 3-kHz tones at 110-115 dB SPL). The 1-kHz SF-STCs and CAP-STCs were measured for baseline, IT present and following the acoustic trauma conditions in anesthetized chinchillas. The IT and acoustic trauma affected SF-STCs in an almost indistinguishable way. The SF-STCs changed progressively from a broad high-pass to narrow band-pass shape as the frequency of the IT was lowered and for subsequent exposures to lower-frequency tones. Both results were in agreement with the "basal sources" hypothesis. In contrast, CAP-STCs were not changed by either manipulation, indicating that neither the IT nor acoustic trauma affected the 1-kHz characteristic place. Thus, unlike CAPs, SFOAEs cannot be considered as a place-specific measure of cochlear function at low frequencies, at least in chinchillas.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25813430      PMCID: PMC4417092          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-015-0513-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  63 in total

1.  Changes to low-frequency components of the TEOAE following acoustic trauma to the base of the cochlea.

Authors:  R H Withnell; G K Yates; D L Kirk
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Frequency responses of two- and three-tone distortion product otoacoustic emissions in Mongolian gerbils.

Authors:  D M Mills
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Transient emission suppression tuning curve attributes in relation to psychoacoustic threshold.

Authors:  Erika M Zettner; Richard C Folsom
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Delays of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions and cochlear vibrations contradict the theory of coherent reflection filtering.

Authors:  Jonathan H Siegel; Amanda J Cerka; Alberto Recio-Spinoso; Andrei N Temchin; Pim van Dijk; Mario A Ruggero
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Mutual suppression in the 6 kHz region of sensitive chinchilla cochleae.

Authors:  William S Rhode
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Unexceptional sharpness of frequency tuning in the human cochlea.

Authors:  Mario A Ruggero; Andrei N Temchin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-12-12       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  DPOAE level shifts and ABR threshold shifts compared to detailed analysis of histopathological damage from noise.

Authors:  Gary W Harding; Barbara A Bohne; Mueed Ahmad
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions from guinea pig and human subjects.

Authors:  M Souter
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Histopathological differences between temporary and permanent threshold shift.

Authors:  A S Nordmann; B A Bohne; G W Harding
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Suppression and enhancement of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions by interference tones above f(2). II. Findings in humans.

Authors:  Glen K Martin; Eloy I Villasuso; Barden B Stagner; Brenda L Lonsbury-Martin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  16 in total

1.  Spectral Ripples in Round-Window Cochlear Microphonics: Evidence for Multiple Generation Mechanisms.

Authors:  Karolina K Charaziak; Jonathan H Siegel; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-07-16

Review 2.  Olivocochlear efferents: Their action, effects, measurement and uses, and the impact of the new conception of cochlear mechanical responses.

Authors:  John J Guinan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Electrically Evoked Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Effects on Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions in Guinea Pigs.

Authors:  Maria A Berezina-Greene; John J Guinan
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-10-31

4.  The Spatial Origins of Cochlear Amplification Assessed by Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions.

Authors:  Shawn S Goodman; Choongheon Lee; John J Guinan; Jeffery T Lichtenhan
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 4.033

5.  Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Delays and Generating Mechanisms in Guinea Pigs, Chinchillas, and Simulations.

Authors:  Maria A Berezina-Greene; John J Guinan
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-15

6.  Amplification and Suppression of Traveling Waves along the Mouse Organ of Corti: Evidence for Spatial Variation in the Longitudinal Coupling of Outer Hair Cell-Generated Forces.

Authors:  James B Dewey; Brian E Applegate; John S Oghalai
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Relationship Between Behavioral and Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions Delay-Based Tuning Estimates.

Authors:  Uzma Shaheen Wilson; Jenna Browning-Kamins; Sriram Boothalingam; Arturo Moleti; Renata Sisto; Sumitrajit Dhar
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-05-28       Impact factor: 2.297

8.  Differentiating Middle Ear and Medial Olivocochlear Effects on Transient-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions.

Authors:  Kendra L Marks; Jonathan H Siegel
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-04-21

9.  Drug delivery into the cochlear apex: Improved control to sequentially affect finely spaced regions along the entire length of the cochlear spiral.

Authors:  J T Lichtenhan; J Hartsock; J R Dornhoffer; K M Donovan; A N Salt
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 2.390

10.  A cochlea with three parts? Evidence from otoacoustic emission phase in humans.

Authors:  Anders T Christensen; Carolina Abdala; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.