Experimental confirmation of the two-source interference model for the fine structure of distortion product otoacoustic emissions.

High-resolution measurements of distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) from three different experimental paradigms are shown to be in agreement with the implications of a realistic "two-source" cochlear model of DPOAE fine structure. The measurements of DPOAE amplitude and phase imply an interference phenomenon involving one source in the region of strong nonlinear interaction of the primary waves (the strong "overlap" or generation region), and the other source region around the DPOAE tonotopic place. The component from the DPOAE place can be larger than the one from the generator region. These findings are supported by the analysis of the onset and offset of the DPOAE when the higher-frequency primary is pulsed on and off. The two-source hypothesis was further tested by adding a third tone closer in frequency to the DPOAE which modifies the amplitude of the component from the DPOAE place and leaves the one from the generator region unchanged. The results agree well with the model prediction that the variation with frequency, and implied latency, of the phase of the DPOAE tonotopic-place component are greater than the corresponding quantities for the component from the generation region.

[1]  G. Long,et al.  Modeling otoacoustic emission and hearing threshold fine structures. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

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

[4]  J. H. Siegel,et al.  Sound calibration and distortion product otoacoustic emissions at high frequencies , 1994, Hearing Research.

[5]  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 .

[6]  S. Neely,et al.  Towards understanding the limits of distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  R. A. Schmiedt,et al.  Modeling the fine structure of the 2f1-f2 acoustic distortion product. I. Model development. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  J. Pierce,et al.  The cochlear compromise. , 1976, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  A. M. Brown,et al.  Suppression of human acoustic distortion product: dual origin of 2f1-f2. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  D. D. Greenwood A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  M. Whitehead,et al.  Locus of generation for the 2f1-f2 vs 2f2-f1 distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing humans revealed by suppression tuning, onset latencies, and amplitude correlations. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  G. Long,et al.  Spontaneous otoacoustic emission frequency is modulated by heartbeat. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  W. Davidon,et al.  Mathematical Methods of Physics , 1965 .

[14]  G. Zweig,et al.  The origin of periodicity in the spectrum of evoked otoacoustic emissions. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  G. Zweig,et al.  Finding the impedance of the organ of Corti. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  J. Eggermont,et al.  The effect of sound intensity on f1-sweep and f2-sweep distortion product otoacoustic emissions phase delay estimates in human adults. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  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.

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

[19]  T. Janssen,et al.  Suppression tuning characteristics of the 2 f1-f2 distortion-product otoacoustic emission in humans. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[21]  W. J. Murphy,et al.  New off-line method for detecting spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in human subjects , 1993, Hearing Research.

[22]  J. Guinan,et al.  The ipsilaterally evoked olivocochlear reflex causes rapid adaptation of the 2f1-f2 distortion product otoacoustic emission. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Kemp Dt,et al.  The evoked cochlear mechanical response and the auditory microstructure - evidence for a new element in cochlear mechanics. , 1979 .

[24]  M. Whitehead,et al.  Effects of ear-canal standing waves on measurements of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  M. Whitehead Slow variations of the amplitude and frequency of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions , 1991, Hearing Research.