Basal Contributions to Short-Latency Transient-Evoked Otoacoustic Emission Components

Lewis, James D.; Goodman, Shawn S.

doi:10.1007/s10162-014-0493-5

Cited by 23 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(81 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, tones or tone bursts remote from the frequency of the evoking sound can suppress TEOAEs, suggesting that the generators are distributed over a broader region of the cochlea (Sutton 1985;Zwicker and Wesel 1990;Zettner and Folsom 2003;Killan et al 2012;Lewis and Goodman 2014). Differences in growth functions of short-and long-latency components of TEOAEs support the idea that the former component originated in more basal locations (Goodman et al 2011;Sisto et al 2013).…”

Section: Broad Region Of Generation Of Oaes Evoked With Complex Stimulimentioning

confidence: 87%

Tuning of SFOAEs Evoked by Low-Frequency Tones Is Not Compatible with Localized Emission Generation

Charaziak

Siegel

2015

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions (SFOAEs) appear to be well suited for assessing frequency selectivity because, at least on theoretical grounds, they originate over a restricted region of the cochlea near the characteristic place of the evoking tone. In support of this view, we previously found good agreement between SFOAE suppression tuning curves (SF-STCs) and a control measure of frequency selectivity (compound action potential suppression tuning curves (CAP-STC)) for frequencies above 3 kHz in chinchillas. For lower frequencies, however, SF-STCs and were over five times broader than the CAP-STCs and demonstrated more high-pass rather than narrow band-pass filter characteristics. Here, we test the hypothesis that the broad tuning of low-frequency SF-STCs is because emissions originate over a broad region of the cochlea extending basal to the characteristic place of the evoking tone. We removed contributions of the hypothesized basally located SFOAE sources by either pre-suppressing them with a high-frequency interference tone (IT; 4.2, 6.2, or 9.2 kHz at 75 dB sound pressure level (SPL)) or by inducing acoustic trauma at high frequencies (exposures to 8, 5, and lastly 3-kHz tones at 110-115 dB SPL). The 1-kHz SF-STCs and CAP-STCs were measured for baseline, IT present and following the acoustic trauma conditions in anesthetized chinchillas. The IT and acoustic trauma affected SF-STCs in an almost indistinguishable way. The SF-STCs changed progressively from a broad high-pass to narrow band-pass shape as the frequency of the IT was lowered and for subsequent exposures to lowerfrequency tones. Both results were in agreement with the Bbasal sources^hypothesis. In contrast, CAP-STCs were not changed by either manipulation, indicating that neither the IT nor acoustic trauma affected the 1-kHz characteristic place. Thus, unlike CAPs, SFOAEs cannot be considered as a place-specific measure of cochlear function at low frequencies, at least in chinchillas.

show abstract

Section: Broad Region Of Generation Of Oaes Evoked With Complex Stimulimentioning

confidence: 87%

Tuning of SFOAEs Evoked by Low-Frequency Tones Is Not Compatible with Localized Emission Generation

Charaziak

Siegel

2015

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shortlatency TEOAEs do not appear to be produced by intermodulation distortion at the basal end of the cochlea (Lewis and Goodman, 2014). Some components may be generated in more basal parts within the tonotopic region of the BM ( Sisto et al, 2013;Lewis and Goodman, 2015). In addition, tone-burst SFOAEs do not generally show evidence of intermodulation distortion components except at higher test levels (60 dB SPL) (Konrad-Martin and , in which such distortion was absent at lower levels (40-50 dB SPL).…”

Section: A Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…CEOAE growth rates are compressive in the longlatency component generated in the tonotopic region of the cochlear traveling wave, but nearly linear for multiple components generated at shorter times (Goodman et al, 2009;Lewis and Goodman, 2015). Click and chirp TEOAEs are compared in the present study at two stimulus levels differing by 6 dB in order to evaluate whether a compressive growth is observed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions using chirp and click stimuli

Keefe

Feeney

Hunter

et al. 2016

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transient-evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) responses (0.7-8 kHz) were measured in normalhearing adult ears using click stimuli and chirps whose local frequency increased or decreased linearly with time over the stimulus duration. Chirp stimuli were created by allpass filtering a click with relatively constant incident pressure level over frequency. Chirp TEOAEs were analyzed as a nonlinear residual signal by inverse allpass filtering each chirp response into an equivalent click response. Multi-window spectral and temporal averaging reduced noise levels compared to a single-window average. Mean TEOAE levels using click and chirp stimuli were similar with respect to their standard errors in adult ears. TEOAE group delay, group spread, instantaneous frequency, and instantaneous bandwidth were similar overall for chirp and click conditions, except for small differences showing nonlinear interactions differing across stimulus conditions. These results support the theory of a similar generation mechanism on the basilar membrane for both click and chirp conditions based on coherent reflection within the tonotopic region. TEOAE temporal fine structure was invariant across changes in stimulus level, which is analogous to the intensity invariance of click-evoked basilar-membrane displacement data.

show abstract

“…Since humans have sharper tuning than animals (Shera et al 2002(Shera et al , 2010, one octave might be too far from the probe frequency to be within the cochlear-amplified region of the response to the tone pip. However, Lewis and Goodman's three-cycle tone pip had a very broad spectrum: at 1/2 octave above the pip center frequency, the energy was only about 10 dB below the energy at the peak (Lewis and Goodman 2014a). So a suppressor tone one octave above the peak frequency would be ½ octave above the upper shoulder of the stimulus bandwidth and perhaps within the suppression region for this energy.…”

Section: Implications For Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Delays and Generating Mechanisms in Guinea Pigs, Chinchillas, and Simulations

Berezina-Greene

Guinan

2015

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to coherent reflection theory (CRT), stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions (SFOAEs) arise from cochlear irregularities coherently reflecting energy from basilar membrane motion within the traveling-wave peak. This reflected energy arrives in the ear canal predominantly with a single delay at each frequency. However, data from humans and animals indicate that (1) SFOAEs can have multiple delay components, (2) low-frequency SFOAE delays are too short to be accounted for by CRT, and (3) "SFOAEs" obtained with a 2nd ("suppressor") tone ≥2 octaves above the probe tone have been interpreted as arising from the area basal to the region of cochlear amplification. To explore these issues, we collected SFOAEs by the suppression method in guinea pigs and time-frequency analyzed these data, simulated SFOAEs, and published chinchilla SFOAEs. Time-frequency analysis revealed that most frequencies showed only one SFOAE delay component while other frequencies had multiple components including some with short delays. We found no systematic patterns in the occurrence of multiple delay components. Using a cochlear model that had significant basilar membrane motion only in the peak region of the traveling wave, simulated SFOAEs had single and multiple delay components similar to the animal SFOAEs. This result indicates that multiple components (including ones with short delays) can originate from cochlear mechanical irregularities in the SFOAE peak region and are not necessarily indicative of SFOAE sources in regions ≥2 octaves basal of the SFOAE peak region. We conclude that SFOAEs obtained with suppressors close to the probe frequency provide information primarily about the mechanical response in the region that receives amplification, and we attribute the too-short SFOAE delays at low frequencies to distortion-source SFOAEs and coherent reflection from multiple cochlear motions. Our findings suggest that CRT needs revision to include reflections from multiple motions in the cochlear apex.

show abstract

Basal Contributions to Short-Latency Transient-Evoked Otoacoustic Emission Components

Cited by 23 publications

References 59 publications

Tuning of SFOAEs Evoked by Low-Frequency Tones Is Not Compatible with Localized Emission Generation

Tuning of SFOAEs Evoked by Low-Frequency Tones Is Not Compatible with Localized Emission Generation

Comparisons of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions using chirp and click stimuli

Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Delays and Generating Mechanisms in Guinea Pigs, Chinchillas, and Simulations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About