Acoustic distortion products in rabbit ear canal. II. Sites of origin revealed by suppression contours and pure-tone exposures

Previous work on acoustic distortion products (DPs) recorded from the ear canal has not established unequivocally whether emitted DPs principally reflect basilar-membrane nonlinearities at the frequency sites of the primary tones, f1 and f2, or if the DP-frequency place itself makes a significant contribution to the emitted response. Results from some studies on acoustic emissions attribute generation of the emitted DP almost exclusively to the regions of maximum primary-tone interaction, while the findings of other investigations implicate reemission of the response from the DP locus as a significant contributor to response magnitude. Using suppression, interfering tones, and temporary threshold shift (TTS) procedures, the work reported here was designed to establish more definitively the precise contributions of the basilar-membrane regions involved in generating acoustic DPs in rabbits. Suppression tuning curves and interfering-tone experiments indicated that for the DP at 2f1-f2, regions near the f1 or f2 frequencies were the major contributors to the emitted response. However, for the higher-frequency DP at 2f2-f1, the basilar-membrane region just basal to the DP site was implicated as the generator. Following brief episodes of TTS at frequencies related to either the DP or the primary tones, the locus of the exposure stimulus that most effectively reduced the magnitude of the 2f1-f2 response also implicated the region of maximal primary-tone interaction in the generation of the acoustic DP. In contrast, for the DP at 2f2-f1, basilar-membrane sites nearer the DP were identified as the primary contributors to the emitted response. Both sets of results imply that different DPs recorded from the ear canal may originate from unique regions of primary-tone interaction along the basilar membrane.

[1]  W. W. Clark,et al.  Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in chinchilla ear canals: Correlation with histopathology and suppression by external tones , 1984, Hearing Research.

[2]  D. T. Kemp,et al.  Intermodulation distortion in the cochlea: could basal vibration be the major cause of round window CM distortion? , 1985, Hearing Research.

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

[4]  J. L. Hall,et al.  Two-tone distortion products in a nonlinear model of the basilar membrane. , 1974, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  R. A. Schmiedt Acoustic distortion in the ear canal. I. Cubic difference tones: effects of acute noise injury. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  R. Plomp,et al.  DETECTABILITY THRESHOLD FOR COMBINATION TONES. , 1965, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  E. M. Burns,et al.  Interactions among spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. I. Distortion products and linked emissions , 1984, Hearing Research.

[8]  D. Kemp,et al.  Wideband Analysis of Otoacoustic Intermodulation , 1986 .

[9]  Combination tone 2fl-fh in microphonic potentials. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  B. Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Temporary hearing loss from exposure to moderately intense tones in rhesus monkeys. , 1981, American journal of otolaryngology.

[11]  D O Kim,et al.  Cochlear mechanics: nonlinear behavior in two-tone responses as reflected in cochlear-nerve-fiber responses and in ear-canal sound pressure. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  R. J. Ritsma,et al.  FREQUENCY-SPECTRA OF COCHLEAR ACOUSTIC EMISSIONS (KEMP-ECHOES) , 1981 .

[13]  I. Hirsh,et al.  Auditory‐Threshold Recovery after Exposures to Pure Tones , 1955 .

[14]  Effects of moderately intense sound on auditory sensitivity in rhesus monkeys: behavioral and neural observations. , 1981, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  J. L. Goldstein,et al.  Neural correlates of the aural combination tone 2f 1 - f 2 , 1968 .

[16]  D. O. Kim,et al.  Cochlear biomechanics: Vulnerability to acoustic trauma and other alterations as seen in neural responses and ear-canal sound pressure , 1982 .

[17]  D. O. Kim Cochlear mechanics: Implications of electrophysiological and acoustical observations , 1980, Hearing Research.

[18]  J. L. Hall Cochlear models: Evidence in support of mechanical nonlinearity and a second filter (a review) , 1980, Hearing Research.

[19]  D. Mountain,et al.  Changes in endolymphatic potential and crossed olivocochlear bundle stimulation alter cochlear mechanics. , 1980, Science.

[20]  Guido F. Smoorenburg,et al.  Combination Tones and Their Origin , 1972 .

[21]  W. W. Clark,et al.  The behavior of acoustic distortion products in the ear canals of chinchillas with normal or damaged ears. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Peter Dallos,et al.  Two-tone suppression and intermodulation distortion in the cochlea: Effect of outer hair cell lesions , 1980 .

[23]  J. P. Wilson,et al.  The Combination Tone, 2f1 – f2, in Psychophysics and Ear-Canal Recording , 1980 .

[24]  B. Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Neural correlates of auditory fatigue: frequency-dependent changes in activity of single cochlear nerve fibers. , 1978, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  D. T. Kemp,et al.  An Integrated View of Cochlear Mechanical Nonlinearities Observable from the Ear Canal , 1983 .

[26]  Effects of altering organ of Corti on cochlear distortion products f2 - f1 and 2f1 - f2. , 1982, Journal of neurophysiology.

[27]  B. J. Winer Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[28]  B. Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Acoustic distortion products in rabbit ear canal. I. Basic features and physiological vulnerability , 1987, Hearing Research.

[29]  P M Zurek,et al.  Combination tones at frequencies greater than the primary tones. , 1979, Science.