Literature DB >> 28382742

Mechanical tuning and amplification within the apex of the guinea pig cochlea.

Alberto Recio-Spinoso1, John S Oghalai2.   

Abstract

KEY POINTS: A popular conception of mammalian cochlear physiology is that tuned mechanical vibration of the basilar membrane defines the frequency response of the innervating auditory nerve fibres However, the data supporting these concepts come from vibratory measurements at cochlear locations tuned to high frequencies (>7 kHz). Here, we measured the travelling wave in regions of the guinea pig cochlea that respond to low frequencies (<2 kHz) and found that mechanical tuning was broad and did not match auditory nerve tuning characteristics. Non-linear amplification of the travelling wave functioned over a broad frequency range and did not substantially sharpen frequency tuning. Thus, the neural encoding of low-frequency sounds, which includes most of the information conveyed by human speech, is not principally determined by basilar membrane mechanics. ABSTRACT: The popular notion of mammalian cochlear function is that auditory nerves are tuned to respond best to different sound frequencies because basilar membrane vibration is mechanically tuned to different frequencies along its length. However, this concept has only been demonstrated in regions of the cochlea tuned to frequencies >7 kHz, not in regions sensitive to lower frequencies where human speech is encoded. Here, we overcame historical technical limitations and non-invasively measured sound-induced vibrations at four locations distributed over the apical two turns of the guinea pig cochlea. In turn 3, the responses demonstrated low-pass filter characteristics. In turn 2, the responses were low-pass-like, in that they occasionally did have a slight peak near the corner frequency. The corner frequencies of the responses were tonotopically tuned and ranged from 384 to 668 Hz. Non-linear gain, or amplification of the vibrations in response to low-intensity stimuli, was found both below and above the corner frequencies. Post mortem, cochlear gain disappeared. The non-linear gain was typically 10-30 dB and was broad-band rather than sharply tuned. However, the gain did reach nearly 50 dB in turn 2 for higher stimulus frequencies, nearly the amount of gain found in basal cochlear regions. Thus, our data prove that mechanical responses do not match neural responses and that cochlear amplification does not appreciably sharpen frequency tuning for cochlear regions that respond to frequencies <2 kHz. These data indicate that the non-linear processing of sound performed by the guinea pig cochlea varies substantially between the cochlear apex and base.
© 2017 The Authors. The Journal of Physiology © 2017 The Physiological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  auditory system; cochlea; hair cell; hearing

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28382742      PMCID: PMC5491880          DOI: 10.1113/JP273881

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Physiol        ISSN: 0022-3751            Impact factor:   5.182


  60 in total

1.  An experimental study into the acousto-mechanical effects of invading the cochlea.

Authors:  Wei Dong; Nigel P Cooper
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2006-08-22       Impact factor: 4.118

2.  Laser Doppler velocimetry of basilar membrane vibration.

Authors:  A L Nuttall; D F Dolan; G Avinash
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Three-dimensional reconstruction of the guinea pig inner ear, comparison of OPFOS and light microscopy, applications of 3D reconstruction.

Authors:  R Hofman; J M Segenhout; H P Wit
Journal:  J Microsc       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.758

4.  Threshold tuning curves of chinchilla auditory nerve fibers. II. Dependence on spontaneous activity and relation to cochlear nonlinearity.

Authors:  Andrei N Temchin; Nola C Rich; Mario A Ruggero
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-08-27       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Laser-feedback measurements of turtle basilar membrane motion using direct reflection.

Authors:  M P O'Neill; A Bearden
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Frequency tuning of basilar membrane and auditory nerve fibers in the same cochleae.

Authors:  S S Narayan; A N Temchin; A Recio; M A Ruggero
Journal:  Science       Date:  1998-12-04       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibrations in living mouse cochleae.

Authors:  Tianying Ren; Wenxuan He; David Kemp
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  An electrical tuning mechanism in turtle cochlear hair cells.

Authors:  A C Crawford; R Fettiplace
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1981-03       Impact factor: 5.182

9.  The cochlear frequency map for the cat: labeling auditory-nerve fibers of known characteristic frequency.

Authors:  M C Liberman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Assessment of hearing in 80 inbred strains of mice by ABR threshold analyses.

Authors:  Q Y Zheng; K R Johnson; L C Erway
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  27 in total

1.  Cochlear partition anatomy and motion in humans differ from the classic view of mammals.

Authors:  Stefan Raufer; John J Guinan; Hideko Heidi Nakajima
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Exploring the Role of Medial Olivocochlear Efferents on the Detection of Amplitude Modulation for Tones Presented in Noise.

Authors:  Magdalena Wojtczak; Alix M Klang; Nathan T Torunsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-05-28

3.  Hearing at speech frequencies is different from what we thought.

Authors:  John J Guinan
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 5.182

4.  Mapping the phase and amplitude of ossicular chain motion using sound-synchronous optical coherence vibrography.

Authors:  Antoine Ramier; Jeffrey Tao Cheng; Michael E Ravicz; John J Rosowski; Seok-Hyun Yun
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 3.732

5.  Organ of Corti vibration within the intact gerbil cochlea measured by volumetric optical coherence tomography and vibrometry.

Authors:  Wei Dong; Anping Xia; Patrick D Raphael; Sunil Puria; Brian Applegate; John S Oghalai
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 6.  Travelling waves and tonotopicity in the inner ear: a historical and comparative perspective.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Manley
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 1.836

7.  The Competition between the Noise and Shear Motion Sensitivity of Cochlear Inner Hair Cell Stereocilia.

Authors:  Aritra Sasmal; Karl Grosh
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 4.033

Review 8.  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

9.  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

10.  No effects of attention or visual perceptual load on cochlear function, as measured with stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Jordan A Beim; Andrew J Oxenham; Magdalena Wojtczak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.