Literature DB >> 8817890

Is the pressure difference between the oval and round windows the effective acoustic stimulus for the cochlea?

S E Voss1, J J Rosowski, W T Peake.   

Abstract

The assumption that the pressure difference between the cochlear windows is the stimulus that produces cochlear responses is tested experimentally in the ears of anesthetized cats. Cochlear potential is used as a measure of cochlear response. The sound pressures at the oval and round windows are individually controlled with both pressures at the same frequency and amplitude. When the angle difference between the two pressures is varied over one cycle, cochlear-potential magnitude varies by about 40 dB, with a sharp minimum occurring with the angle difference near zero. A linear model of the response to the two input pressures estimates a complex common-mode gain C and a complex difference-mode gain D; magnitude of D is about 35 dB greater than magnitude of C over the frequency range that was tested (75 to 1000 Hz). Thus, except for conditions that make the common-mode input much larger than the difference-mode input, the pressure difference between the oval and round windows is, to a good approximation, the effective acoustic stimulus for the cochlea.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8817890     DOI: 10.1121/1.416062

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


  30 in total

1.  On cochlear impedances and the miscomputation of power gain.

Authors:  Christopher A Shera; Elizabeth S Olson; John J Guinan
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-09-27

2.  The conductive hearing loss due to an experimentally induced middle ear effusion alters the interaural level and time difference cues to sound location.

Authors:  Jennifer L Thornton; Keely M Chevallier; Kanthaiah Koka; J Eric Lupo; Daniel J Tollin
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-05-31

Review 3.  Conductive hearing loss caused by third-window lesions of the inner ear.

Authors:  Saumil N Merchant; John J Rosowski
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Finite element modeling of acousto-mechanical coupling in the cat middle ear.

Authors:  James P Tuck-Lee; Peter M Pinsky; Charles R Steele; Sunil Puria
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Testing coherent reflection in chinchilla: Auditory-nerve responses predict stimulus-frequency emissions.

Authors:  Christopher A Shera; Arnold Tubis; Carrick L Talmadge
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Lateral Semicircular Canal Pressures During Cochlear Implant Electrode Insertion: a Possible Mechanism for Postoperative Vestibular Loss.

Authors:  Renee M Banakis Hartl; Nathaniel T Greene; Herman A Jenkins; Stephen P Cass; Daniel J Tollin
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Interactions in the cochlea between air conduction and osseous and non-osseous bone conduction stimulation.

Authors:  Cahtia Adelman; Rachel Fraenkel; Leonid Kriksunov; Haim Sohmer
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  [Vibration properties of the ossicle and cochlea and their importance for our hearing system].

Authors:  A M Huber; A Eiber
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.284

9.  Basilar-membrane responses to clicks at the base of the chinchilla cochlea.

Authors:  A Recio; N C Rich; S S Narayan; M A Ruggero
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Infrasound transmission in the human ear: Implications for acoustic and vestibular responses of the normal and dehiscent inner ear.

Authors:  Stefan Raufer; Salwa F Masud; Hideko H Nakajima
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.