Literature DB >> 9972564

Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: a taxonomy for mammalian OAEs.

C A Shera1, J J Guinan.   

Abstract

Otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) of all types are widely assumed to arise by a common mechanism: nonlinear electromechanical distortion within the cochlea. In this view, both stimulus-frequency (SFOAEs) and distortion-product emissions (DPOAEs) arise because nonlinearities in the mechanics act as "sources" of backward-traveling waves. This unified picture is tested by analyzing measurements of emission phase using a simple phenomenological description of the nonlinear re-emission process. The analysis framework is independent of the detailed form of the emission sources and the nonlinearities that produce them. The analysis demonstrates that the common assumption that SFOAEs originate by nonlinear distortion requires that SFOAE phase be essentially independent of frequency, in striking contradiction with experiment. This contradiction implies that evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms within the cochlea. These two mechanisms (linear reflection versus nonlinear distortion) are described and two broad classes of emissions--reflection-source and distortion-source emissions--are distinguished based on the mechanisms of their generation. The implications of this OAE taxonomy for the measurement, interpretation, and clinical use of otoacoustic emissions as noninvasive probes of cochlear function are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9972564     DOI: 10.1121/1.426948

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


  222 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.  Individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities.

Authors:  Gayla L Poling; Amy R Horwitz; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-09-22

3.  Evolutionary aspects of bat echolocation.

Authors:  G Neuweiler
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2003-03-28       Impact factor: 1.836

4.  Otoacoustic emissions from residual oscillations of the cochlear basilar membrane in a human ear model.

Authors:  Renato Nobili; Ales Vetesnik; Lorenzo Turicchia; Fabio Mammano
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-07-10

Review 5.  [Diagnostics of the cochlear amplifier by means of DPOAE growth functions].

Authors:  T Janssen
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 1.284

6.  Contralateral-noise effects on cochlear responses in anesthetized mice are dominated by feedback from an unknown pathway.

Authors:  Stéphane F Maison; Hajime Usubuchi; Douglas E Vetter; A Bélen Elgoyhen; Steven A Thomas; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Sex differences in distortion-product and transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions compared.

Authors:  Dennis McFadden; Glen K Martin; Barden B Stagner; Mindy M Maloney
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Towards a joint reflection-distortion otoacoustic emission profile: Results in normal and impaired ears.

Authors:  Carolina Abdala; Radha Kalluri
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Slow build-up of cochlear suppression during sustained contralateral noise: central modulation of olivocochlear efferents?

Authors:  Erik Larsen; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.