Nonlinear temporal interactions in click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. I. Assumed model and polarity-symmetry

Kapadia, Sarosh; Lutman, Mark E.

doi:10.1016/s0378-5955(00)00102-7

Cited by 18 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The frequency dependence of the release from suppression provides a link between CEOAE lag suppression and the local BM IR duration (Verhulst et al 2011b ) . Even though it is unclear which exact local BM mechanism is responsible for lag suppression exceeding 6 dB at ICIs larger than zero, BM models based on instantaneous compression can account for the ICI range and frequency dependence of the lag suppression (Kapadia and Lutman 2000a ;Harte et al 2005 ;Verhulst et al 2011b ) .…”

Section: Monaural Bm Ir Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Contributions to the Precedence Effect

Verhulst

Bianchi

Dau

2013

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Normal-hearing individuals have sharply tuned auditory fi lters, and consequently their basilar-membrane (BM) impulse responses (IRs) have durations of several ms at frequencies in the range from 0 to 5 kHz. When presenting clicks that are several ms apart, the BM IRs to the individual clicks will overlap in time, giving rise to complex interactions that have not been fully understood in the human cochlea. The perceptual consequences of these BM IR interactions are of interest as lead-lag click pairs are often used to study localization and the precedence effect. The present study aimed at characterizing perceptual consequences of BM IR interactions in individual listeners based on click-evoked otoacoustic emissions (CEOAEs) and auditory brainstem responses (ABRs). Lag suppression, denoting the level difference between the CEOAE or wave-V response amplitude evoked by the fi rst and the second clicks, was observed for inter-click intervals (ICIs) between 1 and 4 ms. Behavioral correlates of lag suppression were obtained for the same individuals by investigating the percept of the lead-lag click pairs presented either monaurally or binaurally. The click pairs were shown to give rise to fusion (i.e., the inability to hear out the second click in a lead-lag click pair), regardless of monaural or binaural presentation. In both cases, the ICI range where the percept was a fused image correlated well with the ICI range for which monaural lag suppression occurred in the CEOAE and ABR (i.e., for ICIs below 4.3 ms). Furthermore, the lag suppression observed in the wave-V amplitudes to binaural stimulation did not show additional contributions to the lag suppression obtained monaurally, suggesting that peripheral lag suppression up to the level of the brainstem is dominant in the perception of the precedence effect.

show abstract

Section: Monaural Bm Ir Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Contributions to the Precedence Effect

Verhulst

Bianchi

Dau

2013

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The modelling approach taken was similar to that used to test mechanisms responsible for suppression of CEOAE by additional clicks closely spaced in time (Kapadia and Lutman, 2000a) and rate suppression (Kapadia and Lutman, 2001).…”

Section: Description Of Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

A mechanism for simultaneous suppression of tone burst-evoked otoacoustic emissions

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tone burst-evoked otoacoustic emission (TBOAE) components in response to a 1-kHz tone burst are suppressed by the simultaneous presence of tone bursts at higher frequencies. To date, the underlying cause of this "simultaneous suppression" of TBOAEs is unclear. This paper describes a potential mechanism based on local nonlinear interactions between basilar membrane (BM) travelling waves, and tests the extent to which it is able to account for this specific suppression phenomenon. A simple mathematical model based on local nonlinear interactions was developed, and its predictions for a range of tone burst pairs were compared to corresponding TBOAE suppression data recorded from fourteen normally-hearing human ears at a level of 60 dB p.e. SPL. Model predictions and mean TBOAE suppression data showed close agreement for all pairs of tone bursts. These results suggest that simultaneous suppression of TBOAEs can be explained solely in terms of the local nonlinear interactionbased mechanism. However, the involvement of other mechanisms, involving components generated at places basal to their characteristic place along the BM, cannot be excluded.

show abstract

“…Temporal suppression has been modelled by means of a static nonlinearity (Kapadia and Lutman, 2000a;Harte et al, 2005). This static nonlinearity represented the CEOAE level-curve, linear for inputs below 30 dB and compressive with a constant factor between 0.33 and 0.5 dB/dB for inputs above this level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ICI-based changes in the simulated cochlear outputs led to different outputs of the static nonlinearity, reflected in different suppression-levels. This model simulated suppression relatively well; maximal suppression was obtained for coincident clicks and any temporal separation, smaller than the duration of a single cochlear output, resulted in decreased suppression (Kapadia and Lutman, 2000a). The model could not account for maximal suppression at ICIs other than zero, and therefore Harte et al (2005) introduced a dynamic element containing a delay into the model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Changing the magnitude of the input to this static nonlinearity can change the amount of suppression that can be modelled, but can never create augmentation. This is the reason why the nonlinearity proposed by Kapadia and Lutman (2000a) can model temporal suppression relatively well, but cannot account for augmentation. In a companion study, Kapadia and Lutman (2000b) did not consider this as a problem, as their own as well as Kemp and Chum (1980a)'s experimental data did not show any augmentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation