Ossicular resonance modes of the human middle ear for bone and air conduction

Homma, Kenji; Du, Yu; Shimizu, Yoshitaka; Puria, Sunil

doi:10.1121/1.3056564

Cited by 97 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Even if the ultimate excitation in the cochlea is a traveling wave on the basilar membrane (Stenfelt et al, 2003b;Stenfelt, 2007;von Békésy, 1932), there are contributors that may not be directly related to the vibration of the cochlea. Such contributors can be the sound in the ear-canal during BC stimulation (Bárány, 1938;Stenfelt et al, 2003a) or the inertial effects of the middle ear ossicles (Homma et al, 2009;Huizing, 1960;Stenfelt et al, 2002); although possible, it is not clear that they are related to the cochlear vibration. The middle ear ossicles may contribute to the BC perception at mid-frequencies (1.5-3 kHz) (Stenfelt, 2006), while the outer ear only is believed to be a main contributor at low frequencies (below 2 kHz) when the ear-canal is occluded (Stenfelt et al, 2003a;Stenfelt et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of bone conduction skull transmission by hearing thresholds and ear-canal sound pressure

Reinfeldt¹,

Stenfelt²,

Hȧkansson³

2013

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bone conduction sound transmission in the human skull and the occlusion effect were estimated from hearing thresholds and ear-canal sound pressure (ECSP) measured by a probe tube microphone when stimulation was at three positions on the skull (ipsilateral mastoid, contralateral mastoid, and forehead). The measurements were done with the ear-canal open as well as occluded by an ear-plug. Depending on the estimation method, transcranial transmission at frequencies below 1 kHz was between -8 and 5 dB, around 0 dB at 1 kHz that decreased with frequency to between -17 and -7 dB at 8 kHz. The forehead transmission was, except at frequencies between 1 and 2 kHz, similar to that proposed in the standard ISO:389-3 (1994) when the threshold measurements were conducted with open ear-canals. Compared with the same measurements using hearing thresholds, the ECSP gave similar transmission results at most frequencies, but differed at 0.5, 0.75, 2 and 3 kHz. One probable reason for the differences between thresholds and ECSP measures was a significant perception improvement (lower thresholds) when the stimulation was at the ipsilateral mastoid that was not found at the other positions. This improvement, which also was present in the occlusion effect data, was hypothesized to originate in greater sensitivity of the cochlea for vibration in line with the ipsilateral stimulation direction than from other directions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of bone conduction skull transmission by hearing thresholds and ear-canal sound pressure

Reinfeldt¹,

Stenfelt²,

Hȧkansson³

2013

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The degree of attenuation varies significantly for frequencies above and below the 1-2 kHz range, depending on the direction of BC excitation. This is reasonable since there is a structural resonance associated with the middle ear in response to BC excitations around this frequency range, which is explored in Homma et al (2009Homma et al ( , 2010. Following the cutting of the IS joint, the annular ligament of the stapes is then immobilized, which is a simulation of otosclerosis of the stapes footplate.…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Bc Hearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inertial Bone Conduction: Symmetric and Anti-Symmetric Components

Kim

Homma²,

Puria

2011

JARO

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Of the two pathways through which we hear, air conduction (AC) and bone conduction (BC), the fundamental mechanisms of the BC pathway remain poorly understood, despite their clinical significance. A finite element model of a human middle ear and cochlea was developed to gain insight into the mechanisms of BC hearing. The characteristics of various cochlear response quantities, including the basilar membrane (BM) vibration, oval-window (OW) and round-window (RW) volume velocities, and cochlear fluid pressures were examined for BC as well as AC excitations. These responses were tuned and validated against available experimental data from the literature. BC excitations were simulated in the form of rigid body vibrations of the surrounding bony structures in the x, y, and z orthogonal directions. The results show that the BM vibration characteristics are essentially invariant regardless of whether the excitation is via BC, independent of excitation direction, or via AC. This at first appeared surprising because the cochlear fluid pressures differ considerably depending on the excitation mode. Analysis reveals that the BM vibration responds only to the lower-magnitude anti-symmetric slow-wave cochlear fluid pressure component and not to the symmetric fast-wave pressure component, which dominates the magnitude of the total pressure field. This antisymmetric fluid pressure is produced by the antisymmetric component of the window volume velocities. As a result, the BM is effectively driven by the anti-symmetric component of the OW and RW volume velocities, irrespective of the type of excitation. Middle ear modifications that alter the anti-symmetric component of the OW and RW volume velocities corroborate this assertion. The current results provide further clarification of the mechanisms underlying Békésy's "paradoxical motion" concept.

show abstract

“…This is somewhat opposite to interpretations of clinical findings of otosclerosis of the stapes footplate, where a depression of the BC thresholds at and around 2 kHz of up to 20 dB is seen, often termed the Carhart notch (Carhart, 1971). This depressed BC thresholds has been attributed to the lack of middle ear inertia (Tonndorf, 1966) as the ossicles resonance frequency for BC stimulation is close to 2 kHz (Homma et al, 2009;Stenfelt et al, 2002). However, in a model simulation of BC excitation of the inner ear (Stenfelt, 2015), the depressed BC thresholds close to 2 kHz could be simulated as a result of increased impedance at the oval window (OW).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One way to circumvent this problem is to use a model that can simulate BC excitation. Several such models have been devised to investigate a specific aspect of BC stimulation, for example the occlusion effect (Brummund et al, 2014;Schroeter et al, 1986;Stenfelt et al, 2007), middle ear inertia (Homma et al, 2009;Williams et al, 1990), and inner ear fluid inertia and compression (Bohnke et al, 2006;Kim et al, 2011;Schick, 1991;Stenfelt, 2015). These models are often specific meaning they only investigate a single or a couple of phenomena and not the complete response of the ear to BC stimulation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model predictions for bone conduction perception in the human

Stenfelt

2016

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five different pathways are often suggested as important for bone conducted (BC) sound: (1) sound pressure in the ear canal, (2) inertia of the middle ear ossicles, (3) inertia of the inner ear fluid, (4) compression of the inner ear space, and (5) pressure transmission from the skull interior. The relative importance of these pathways was investigated with an acousticimpedance model of the inner ear. The model incorporated data of BC generated ear canal sound pressure, middle ear ossicle motion, cochlear promontory vibration, and intracranial sound pressure. With BC stimulation at the mastoid, the inner ear inertia dominated the excitation of the cochlea but inner ear compression and middle ear inertia were within 10 dB for almost the entire frequency range of 0.1 to 10 kHz. Ear canal sound pressure gave little contribution at the low and high frequencies, but was around 15 dB below the total contribution at the mid frequencies. Intracranial sound pressure gave responses similar to the others at low frequencies, but decreased with frequency to a level of 55 dB below the total contribution at 10 kHz. When the BC inner ear model was evaluated against AC stimulation at threshold levels, the results were close up to approximately 4 kHz but deviated significantly at higher frequencies. 3 Highlights• A model for BC simulates the contribution from 5 components.• The inner ear compression and inertia and middle ear inertia are most important.• The contribution from intracranial sound pressure is insignificant at higher frequencies.• The model provides similar BM excitation for AC and BC threshold stimulation up to 4 kHz. KeywordsBone conduction, inner ear model, fluid inertia, inner ear compression, middle ear inertia

show abstract

Ossicular resonance modes of the human middle ear for bone and air conduction

Cited by 97 publications

References 19 publications

Estimation of bone conduction skull transmission by hearing thresholds and ear-canal sound pressure

Estimation of bone conduction skull transmission by hearing thresholds and ear-canal sound pressure

Inertial Bone Conduction: Symmetric and Anti-Symmetric Components

Model predictions for bone conduction perception in the human

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About