Literature DB >> 8642119

Two-tone suppression in cochlear mechanics.

N P Cooper1.   

Abstract

Mechanical responses to one- and two-tone stimuli were recorded from the basilar membrane (BM) in the hook region of the guinea-pig cochlea. The most sensitive or "best" frequencies (BFs) for the sites studied were approximately 25-30 kHz. Two-tone suppression (2TS) of the responses to near BF probe tones was noted using suppressor tones either above or below the BF. Rates of growth of 2TS were highest (approximately 1 dB/dB) when the suppressor tones were presented below the BF. Below-BF suppression thresholds (the suppressor intensities causing approximately 10% reduction in the probe-evoked responses) corresponded to BM displacements of approximately 1-5 nm. Above-BF suppression thresholds corresponded to much smaller displacements at the location studied. Both above- and below-BF suppressor tones changed the phase of the probe tone responses in the same way that increases in the probe tone intensity did (they evoked small phase-lags for below-BF probes, and small phase-leads for near- and above-BF probes). Low-frequency suppressor tones ( < approximately 7 kHz) evoked a frequency- and intensity-dependent mixture of phasic (ac) and tonic (dc) suppression. Peak (ac) suppression was observed around the times of peak BM displacement (not velocity). These findings are discussed in relation to those of other workers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8642119     DOI: 10.1121/1.414795

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


  28 in total

Review 1.  Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea.

Authors:  L Robles; M A Ruggero
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 37.312

2.  Synchronization of a nonlinear oscillator: processing the cf component of the echo-response signal in the cochlea of the mustached bat.

Authors:  Ian J Russell; Markus Drexl; Elisabeth Foeller; Marianne Vater; Manfred Kössl
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Essential auditory contrast-sharpening is preneuronal.

Authors:  R Stoop; A Kern
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-06-14       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  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

5.  The relationship between precursor level and the temporal effect.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Influence of stimulus parameters on amplitude-modulated stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Tiffany A Johnson; Laura Beshaler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission suppression tuning in humans: comparison to behavioral tuning.

Authors:  Karolina K Charaziak; Pamela Souza; Jonathan H Siegel
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-09-07

8.  Temporal aspects of suppression in distortion-product otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Joyce Rodriguez; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Low-frequency suppression of auditory nerve responses to characteristic frequency tones.

Authors:  A N Temchin; N C Rich; M A Ruggero
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Harmonic distortion on the basilar membrane in the basal turn of the guinea-pig cochlea.

Authors:  N P Cooper
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1998-05-15       Impact factor: 5.182

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.