Origin of the bell-like dependence of the DPOAE amplitude on primary frequency ratio.

For low and medium sound pressure levels (SPLs), the amplitude of the distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) recorded from guinea pigs at the 2f1-f2 frequency is maximal when f2/f1 approximately 1.23 and decreases for lower and higher f2/f1 ratios. The high-ratio slope of the DPOAE dependence on the ratio of the primary frequencies might be anticipated since the f1 amplitude at the f2 place is expected to decrease for higher f2/f1 ratios. The low-ratio slope of the dependence at low and medium SPLs of the primaries is actually one slope of a notch. The DPOAE amplitude recovers from the notch when the f2/f1 ratio is further reduced. In two-dimensional space formed by the f2/f1 ratio, and the levels of the primaries, the notch is continuous and has a level-dependent phase transition. The notch is identical to that seen in DPOAE growth functions. Similar notches and phase transitions were observed for high-order and high-frequency DPOAEs. Theoretical analysis reveals that a single saturating nonlinearity is capable of generating similar amplitude notch and phase transition when the f2/f1 ratio is decreased because of the increase in f1 amplitude at the DPOAE generation place (f2 place). The difference between the DPOAE recorded from guinea pigs and humans is discussed in terms of different position of the operating point of the DPOAE generating nonlinearity.

[1]  P Dallos,et al.  Nonlinearities in cochlear receptor potentials and their origins. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  S. Neely,et al.  Cochlear generation of intermodulation distortion revealed by DPOAE frequency functions in normal and impaired ears. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  J. Wable,et al.  Phase delay measurements of distortion product otoacoustic emissions at 2f1-f2 and 2f2-f1 in human ears. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  G. Manley,et al.  Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in the tree frog Hyla cinerea , 2001, Hearing Research.

[5]  M P Gorga,et al.  Latency and multiple sources of distortion product otoacoustic emissions. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Edwin W Rubel,et al.  Variation of distortion product otoacoustic emissions with furosemide injection , 1994, Hearing Research.

[7]  I. Russell,et al.  The location of the cochlear amplifier: spatial representation of a single tone on the guinea pig basilar membrane. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  Hans-Ulrich Schnitzler,et al.  Suppression of distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) near 2f1−f2 removes DP-gram fine structure—Evidence for a secondary generator , 1998 .

[9]  A. M. Brown,et al.  Measurement of acoustic distortion reveals underlying similarities between human and rodent mechanical responses. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  B L Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Evidence for two discrete sources of 2f1-f2 distortion-product otoacoustic emission in rabbit. II: Differential physiological vulnerability. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  David T. Kemp,et al.  Suppressibility of the 2 f 1- f 2 stimulated acoustic emissions in gerbil and man , 1984, Hearing Research.

[12]  B L Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Visualization of the onset of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions, and measurement of their latency. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  B L Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Evidence for two discrete sources of 2f1-f2 distortion-product otoacoustic emission in rabbit: I. Differential dependence on stimulus parameters. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  B L Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Acoustic distortion products in humans: systematic changes in amplitudes as a function of f2/f1 ratio. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  D. Mills,et al.  Interpretation of distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. I. Two stimulus tones. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  P. Fahey,et al.  Nonlinear interactions that could explain distortion product interference response areas. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  A. M. Brown,et al.  Two sources of acoustic distortion products from the human cochlea. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  H. Wada,et al.  Effect of anesthetic agents and middle ear pressure application on distortion product otoacoustic emissions in the gerbil , 1997, Hearing Research.

[19]  I. Russell,et al.  A descriptive model of the receptor potential nonlinearities generated by the hair cell mechanoelectrical transducer. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  A. Moulin,et al.  Influence of primary frequencies ratio on distortion product otoacoustic emissions amplitude. I. Intersubject variability and consequences on the DPOAE-gram. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Manfred Kössl,et al.  Acoustical and electrical biasing of the cochlea partition. Effects on the acoustic two tone distortions f2−f1 and 2f1−f2 , 1997, Hearing Research.

[22]  Manfred Kössl,et al.  The acoustic two-tone distortions 2f1-f2 and f2-f1 and their possible relation to changes in the operating point of the cochlear amplifier , 1996, Hearing Research.

[23]  C. Abdala Distortion product otoacoustic emission (2f1-f2) amplitude as a function of f2/f1 frequency ratio and primary tone level separation in human adults and neonates. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  D T Kemp,et al.  Indications of different distortion product otoacoustic emission mechanisms from a detailed f1,f2 area study. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  P Dallos,et al.  Intracellular recordings from cochlear outer hair cells. , 1982, Science.

[26]  M G Evans,et al.  Activation and adaptation of transducer currents in turtle hair cells. , 1989, The Journal of physiology.

[27]  R. A. Schmiedt,et al.  Fine structure of the 2 f1-f2 acoustic distortion products: effects of primary level and frequency ratios. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  R. Schoonhoven,et al.  Amplitude of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in the guinea pig in f 1- and f 2-sweep paradigms , 2001, Hearing Research.

[29]  I. Russell,et al.  Analysis of the f2−f1 and 2 f1−f2 distortion components generated by the hair cell mechanoelectrical transducer: Dependence on the amplitudes of the primaries and feedback gain , 1999 .

[30]  J. Allen,et al.  A second cochlear-frequency map that correlates distortion product and neural tuning measurements. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  A. M. Brown,et al.  Mechanical filtering of sound in the inner ear , 1992, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  Peter Dallos,et al.  Neurobiology of cochlear inner and outer hair cells: intracellular recordings , 1986, Hearing Research.

[33]  E. Rubel,et al.  Development of distortion product emissions in the gerbil: "filter" response and signal delay. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  K. Parham,et al.  Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in the C57BL/6J mouse model of age-related hearing loss , 1997, Hearing Research.

[35]  J. Allen,et al.  Measurement of distortion product phase in the ear canal of the cat. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  M. Whitehead,et al.  Species differences of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions: comment on "Interpretation of distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. I. Two stimulus tones" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 413-429 (1997)]. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  A. Cody,et al.  The response of hair cells in the basal turn of the guinea‐pig cochlea to tones. , 1987, The Journal of physiology.

[38]  Thomas Janssen,et al.  Optimal L 1−L 2 primary tone level separation remains independent of test frequency in humans , 2000, Hearing Research.

[39]  D T Kemp,et al.  Multicomponent acoustic distortion product otoacoustic emission phase in humans. II. Implications for distortion product otoacoustic emissions generation. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  P M Zurek,et al.  Ear canal acoustic distortion at 2f1-f2 from human ears: relation to other emissions and perceived combination tones. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.