Optimal L 1−L 2 primary tone level separation remains independent of test frequency in humans

Previous studies described a systematic asymmetry of the level of the 2f(1)-f(2) distortion product otoacoustic emission (DP) in the space of the primary tones levels L(1) and L(2) in normal-hearing humans. Optimal primary tone level separations L(1)-L(2), which result in maximum DP levels, were close to L(1)=L(2) at high levels, but continuously increased with decreasing stimulus level towards L(1)>L(2) (Gaskill and Brown, 1990, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 821-839). At these optimal L(1)-L(2), however, not only DP levels in normal hearing were maximal, but also trauma-induced DP reductions. A linear equation that approximates optimal L(1)-L(2) level separations thus was suggested to be optimum for use in clinical applications (Whitehead et al., 1995, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97, 2359-2377). It was the aim of this study to extend the generality of optimal L(1)-L(2) separations to the typical human test frequency range for f(2) frequencies between 1 and 8 kHz. DPs were measured in 22 normal-hearing human ears at 61 primary tone level combinations, with L(2) between 5 and 65 dB SPL and L(1) between 30 and 70 dB SPL (f(2)/f(1)=1.2). It was found that the systematic dependence of the maximum DP level on the L(1)-L(2) separation is independent on frequency. Optimal L(1)-L(2) level separations may well be approximated by a linear equation L(1)=a L(2)+(1-a) b (after Whitehead et al., 1995) with parameters a=0.4 and b=70 dB SPL at f(2) frequencies between 1 and 8 kHz and L(2) levels between 20 and 65 dB SPL. Below L(2)=20 dB SPL, the optimal L(1) was found to be almost constant. Following previous notions (Gaskill and Brown, 1990), an analysis of basilar membrane response data in experimental animals (after Ruggero and Rich, 1991, Hear. Res. 51, 215-230) is further presented that relates optimal L(1)-L(2) separations to frequency-selective compression of the basilar membrane. Based on the assumption that optimal conditions for the DP generation are equal primary tone responses at the f(2) place, a linear increase of the optimal L(1)-L(2) level separation is graphically demonstrated, similar to our results in human ears.

[1]  R. A. Schmiedt,et al.  Fine structure of the 2f1-f2 acoustic distortion product: changes with primary level. , 1993, 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]  W. Arnold,et al.  Wachstumsverhalten der Distorsionsproduktemissionen bei kochleären Hörstörungen , 1995 .

[4]  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.

[5]  S J Norton,et al.  Vulnerability and adaptation of distortion product otoacoustic emissions to endocochlear potential variation. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Mechanics of Hearing , 1983 .

[7]  Gerald R. Popelka,et al.  Growth of distortion product otoacoustic emissions with primary-tone level in humans , 1993, Hearing Research.

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

[9]  Jont B. Allen,et al.  Peripheral Auditory Mechanisms , 1986 .

[10]  A. M. Brown,et al.  The behavior of the acoustic distortion product, 2f1-f2, from the human ear and its relation to auditory sensitivity. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  D. Kemp,et al.  Observations on Simultaneous SFOAE and DPOAE Generation and Suppression , 1990 .

[12]  M P Gorga,et al.  The use of cumulative distributions to determine critical values and levels of confidence for clinical distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  G. K. Yates,et al.  Basilar membrane measurements and the travelling wave , 1986, Hearing Research.

[14]  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.

[15]  Mario A. Ruggero,et al.  Application of a commercially-manufactured Doppler-shift laser velocimeter to the measurement of basilar-membrane vibration , 1991, Hearing Research.

[16]  G. Long,et al.  The dependence of the distortion product 2f1-f2 on primary levels in non-impaired human ears. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[17]  T. Janssen,et al.  The level and growth behavior of the 2 f1-f2 distortion product otoacoustic emission and its relationship to auditory sensitivity in normal hearing and cochlear hearing loss. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  T. Janssen,et al.  Growth behavior of the 2 f1-f2 distortion product otoacoustic emission in tinnitus. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  R. Hauser,et al.  The influence of systematic primary-tone level variation L2-L1 on the acoustic distortion product emission 2f1-f2 in normal human ears. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Glen K. Martin,et al.  Distortion Product Emissions in Humans , 1990, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[21]  L. Nielsen,et al.  Clinical significance of relative probe-tone levels on distortion product otoacoustic emissions. , 1993, Scandinavian audiology.

[22]  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.

[23]  Glen K. Martin,et al.  Sensitivity of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in humans to tonal over-exposure: Time course of recovery and effects of lowering L2 , 1994, Hearing Research.

[24]  P. Dallos The active cochlea , 1992, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[25]  M P Gorga,et al.  Toward optimizing the clinical utility of distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  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.

[27]  D A Nelson,et al.  Distortion-product emissions and auditory sensitivity in human ears with normal hearing and cochlear hearing loss. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[28]  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.

[29]  M. J. McCoy,et al.  Dependence of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions on primary levels in normal and impaired ears. I. Effects of decreasing L2 below L1. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Hallowell Davis,et al.  An active process in cochlear mechanics , 1983, Hearing Research.

[31]  L. Robles,et al.  Basilar-membrane responses to tones at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  M. J. McCoy,et al.  Dependence of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions on primary levels in normal and impaired ears. II. Asymmetry in L1,L2 space. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  C. Daniel Geisler,et al.  The Mechanics and Biophysics of Hearing , 1990 .