Inner-ear sound pressures near the base of the cochlea in chinchilla: Further investigation

Ravicz, Michael E.; Rosowski, John J.

doi:10.1121/1.4792139

Cited by 19 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(106 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…interference of SFOAE components with short and long latencies), although it may also in part be related to a small dip in the magnitude of the middle ear gain function at~2.5 kHz observed in open bulla preparations (e.g. Songer and Rosowski 2006;Ravicz and Rosowski 2013). Noteworthy, the short-latency component has been also present even at the highest probe frequencies, although smaller in magnitude than the long-latency ones (Shera et al 2008).…”

Section: Extended Region Of Sfoae Generation At Low Frequenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Cochlear Frequency Selectivity with Stimulus-frequency Otoacoustic Emissions in Chinchillas

Charaziak

Siegel

2014

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that the tuning of the cochlear filters can be derived from measures of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs). Two approaches have been proposed to estimate cochlear frequency selectivity using OAEs evoked with a single tone (stimulus-frequency (SF)) OAEs: based on SFOAE group delays (SF-GDs) and on SFOAE suppression tuning curves (SF-STCs). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether either SF-GDs or SF-STCs obtained with low probe levels (30 dB SPL) correlate with more direct measures of cochlear tuning (compound action potential suppression tuning curves (CAP-STCs)) in chinchillas. The SFOAE-based estimates of tuning covaried with CAPSTCs tuning for 93 kHz probe frequencies, indicating that these measures are related to cochlear frequency selectivity. However, the relationship may be too weak to predict tuning with either SFOAE method in an individual. The SF-GD prediction of tuning was sharper than CAP-STC tuning. On the other hand, SF-STCs were consistently broader than CAP-STCs implying that SFOAEs may have less restricted region of generation in the cochlea than CAPs. Inclusion of G3 kHz data in a statistical model resulted in no significant or borderline significant covariation among the three methods: neither SFOAE test appears to reliably estimate an individual's CAP-STC tuning at low-frequencies. At the group level, SF-GDs and CAP-STCs showed similar tuning at low frequencies, while SF-STCs were over five times broader than the CAP-STCs indicating that low-frequency SFOAE may originate over a very broad region of the cochlea extending ≥5 mm basal to the tonotopic place of the probe.

show abstract

Section: Extended Region Of Sfoae Generation At Low Frequenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Cochlear Frequency Selectivity with Stimulus-frequency Otoacoustic Emissions in Chinchillas

Charaziak

Siegel

2014

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Middle-ear pressure gains have been measured in chinchilla by Décory et al (1990), Ravicz et al (2010), Slama et al (2010), andRosowski (2013a). Interestingly, the G ME magnitude curve reported by (Ravicz and Rosowski 2013a), shown in Figure 6 (brown trace), has a high-frequency cutoff close to that of the present stapes-velocity magnitudes (red trace) and also substantially higher than the corresponding stapes-velocity measurements made by the same authors (blue trace (Ravicz and Rosowski 2013b); magenta trace ).…”

Section: Middle-ear Pressure Gainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stapes Vibration in the Chinchilla Middle Ear: Relation to Behavioral and Auditory-Nerve Thresholds

Robles

Temchin²,

Fan³

2015

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The vibratory responses to tones of the stapes and incus were measured in the middle ears of deeply anesthetized chinchillas using a wide-band acousticstimulus system and a laser velocimeter coupled to a microscope. With the laser beam at an angle of about 40°relative to the axis of stapes piston-like motion, the sensitivity-vs.-frequency curves of vibrations at the head of the stapes and the incus lenticular process were very similar to each other but larger, in the range 15-30 kHz, than the vibrations of the incus just peripheral to the pedicle. With the laser beam aligned with the axis of pistonlike stapes motion, vibrations of the incus just peripheral to its pedicle were very similar to the vibrations of the lenticular process or the stapes head measured at the 40°angle. Thus, the pedicle prevents transmission to the stapes of components of incus vibration not aligned with the axis of stapes piston-like motion. The mean magnitude curve of stapes velocities is fairly flat over a wide frequency range, with a mean value of about 0.19 mm . (s Pa −1 ), has a high-frequency cutoff of 25 kHz (measured at −3 dB re the mean value), and decreases with a slope of about −60 dB/octave at higher frequencies. According to our measurements, the chinchilla middle ear transmits acoustic signals into the cochlea at frequencies exceeding both the bandwidth of responses of auditory-nerve fibers and the upper cutoff of hearing. The phase lags of stapes velocity relative to ear-canal pressure increase approximately linearly, with slopes equivalent to pure delays of about 57-76 μs.

show abstract

“…We also use a previously developed model of the ear canal Rosowski, 2012b, 2013) to provide better estimates of P TM and therefore H V at frequencies above 10 kHz. We use H V , simultaneous measurements of the middle-ear pressure gain G MEP ¼ P V /P TM (Ravicz and Rosowski, 2013), and other measurements of stapes footplate area (Vrettakos et al, 1988) to compute cochlear input admittance for power computations, as described in Sec. III B below.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Middle-ear velocity transfer function, cochlear input immittance, and middle-ear efficiency in chinchilla

Ravicz

Rosowski

2013

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transfer function H(V) between stapes velocity V(S) and sound pressure near the tympanic membrane P(TM) is a descriptor of sound transmission through the middle ear (ME). The ME power transmission efficiency (MEE), the ratio of sound power entering the cochlea to power entering the middle ear, was computed from H(V) measured in seven chinchilla ears and previously reported measurements of ME input admittance Y(TM) and ME pressure gain G(MEP) [Ravicz and Rosowski, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 132, 2437-2454 (2012); J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133, 2208-2223 (2013)] in the same ears. The ME was open, and a pressure sensor was inserted into the cochlear vestibule for most measurements. The cochlear input admittance Y(C) computed from H(V) and G(MEP) is controlled by a combination of mass and resistance and is consistent with a minimum-phase system up to 27 kHz. The real part Re{Y(C)}, which relates cochlear sound power to inner-ear sound pressure, decreased gradually with frequency up to 25 kHz and more rapidly above that. MEE was about 0.5 between 0.1 and 8 kHz, higher than previous estimates in this species, and decreased sharply at higher frequencies.

show abstract

Inner-ear sound pressures near the base of the cochlea in chinchilla: Further investigation

Cited by 19 publications

References 50 publications

Estimating Cochlear Frequency Selectivity with Stimulus-frequency Otoacoustic Emissions in Chinchillas

Estimating Cochlear Frequency Selectivity with Stimulus-frequency Otoacoustic Emissions in Chinchillas

Stapes Vibration in the Chinchilla Middle Ear: Relation to Behavioral and Auditory-Nerve Thresholds

Middle-ear velocity transfer function, cochlear input immittance, and middle-ear efficiency in chinchilla

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About