Effect of click intensity on click-evoked otoacoustic emission waveforms: implications for the origin of emissions

The rather shallow growth of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions (CEOAE) with click intensity, namely <1 dB/dB, distinguishes genuine CEOAEs from stimulus artifacts, thereby providing the rationale for the popular 'derived nonlinear recording' method. However, other CEOAE nonlinearities regarding phase or envelope dependence on stimulus intensity have been barely acknowledged so far. The present work used CEOAEs from 20 normal ears recorded in response to 50-86 dB peak equivalent SPL clicks. The phases of CEOAE spectral components varied considerably with click intensity (sometimes more than 120 degrees ), mostly in a monotonic manner and in such a way that in the majority of ears, phase lagged with increasing intensity. When present, synchronized spontaneous otoacoustic emissions exhibited the same behavior. In a few instances, conspicuous frequency shifts of CEOAE spectral peaks were seen. In contrast to CEOAE phases, envelopes were almost intensity-invariant. This behavior contrasts with that of basilar membrane motion at the place tuned to the stimulus frequency, as consistently disclosed by several recent publications, i.e., no phase shift and large envelope shift with stimulus intensity. It is thought that the phase invariance of basilar membrane motion implies that whatever they do, outer hair cells cannot alter the resonance frequency of the cochlear partition. If one elaborates along this line of reasoning, the large phase shift of CEOAEs with click intensity implies that CEOAEs at frequency f cannot come from the place tuned to f and that instead, they may be intermodulation distortion products produced by nonlinear interactions between spectral components of the click stimulus over a significant length of the basilar membrane.

[1]  G. K. Yates,et al.  The role of intermodulation distortion in transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions , 1999, Hearing Research.

[2]  William E. Brownell,et al.  Outer Hair Cell Electromotility and Otoacoustic Emissions , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[3]  R Probst,et al.  A review of otoacoustic emissions. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  C. Shera,et al.  Intensity-invariance of fine time structure in basilar-membrane click responses: implications for cochlear mechanics. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  Craig C. Bader,et al.  Evoked mechanical responses of isolated cochlear outer hair cells. , 1985, Science.

[6]  J. Guinan,et al.  Auditory-nerve-fiber responses to high-level clicks: interference patterns indicate that excitation is due to the combination of multiple drives. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  J. P. Wilson,et al.  Model for cochlear echoes and tinnitus based on an observed electrical correlate , 1980, Hearing Research.

[8]  J L Goldstein,et al.  A cochlear nonlinear transmission-line model compatible with combination tone psychophysics. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  W. S. Rhode,et al.  Basilar membrane responses to broadband stimuli. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  S J Norton,et al.  Tone-burst-evoked otoacoustic emissions from normal-hearing subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  D. T. Kemp,et al.  Towards a model for the origin of cochlear echoes , 1980, Hearing Research.

[12]  P Dallos,et al.  High-frequency motility of outer hair cells and the cochlear amplifier. , 1995, Science.

[13]  T. Gold Historical Background to the Proposal, 40 Years Ago, of an Active Model for Cochlear Frequency Analysis , 1989 .

[14]  G. K. Yates,et al.  Changes to low-frequency components of the TEOAE following acoustic trauma to the base of the cochlea , 2000, Hearing Research.

[15]  Paul Avan,et al.  Wavelet analysis of real ear and synthesized click evoked otoacoustic emissions , 1994, Hearing Research.

[16]  D T Kemp,et al.  Acoustic emission cochleography--practical aspects. , 1986, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[17]  R. J. Ritsma,et al.  Stimulated acoustic emissions from the human ear , 1979 .

[18]  S Dhar,et al.  Experimental confirmation of the two-source interference model for the fine structure of distortion product otoacoustic emissions. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  B. Engdahl,et al.  Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions as screening for hearing losses at the school for military training. , 1996, Scandinavian audiology.

[20]  E. de Boer,et al.  The mechanical waveform of the basilar membrane. III. Intensity effects. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  M. Liberman,et al.  Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. III. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves , 1984, Hearing Research.

[22]  A. Papoulis,et al.  The Fourier Integral and Its Applications , 1963 .

[23]  M. Ruggero Responses to sound of the basilar membrane of the mammalian cochlea , 1992, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[24]  D. Kemp Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  E Zwicker,et al.  "Otoacoustic" emissions in a nonlinear cochlear hardware model with feedback. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  J. Guinan,et al.  Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: a taxonomy for mammalian OAEs. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  P. Ravazzani,et al.  'Derived nonlinear' versus 'linear' click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. , 1996, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[28]  P. Avan,et al.  Transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions and high-frequency acoustic trauma in the guinea pig. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  Thomas Gold,et al.  Hearing. II. The Physical Basis of the Action of the Cochlea , 1948, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B - Biological Sciences.

[30]  W Jesteadt,et al.  Latency of auditory brain-stem responses and otoacoustic emissions using tone-burst stimuli. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  D. Kemp,et al.  Relationships between DPOAE and TEOAE amplitude and phase characteristics , 1999 .

[32]  S. D. Anderson Some ECMR properties in relation to other signals from the auditory periphery , 1980, Hearing Research.

[33]  Robert Patuzzi,et al.  Cochlear Micromechanics and Macromechanics , 1996 .