Multicomponent acoustic distortion product otoacoustic emission phase in humans. II. Implications for distortion product otoacoustic emissions generation.

Phase characteristics and latency of 2f1-f2, 3f1-2f2, and 2f2-f1 acoustic distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) recorded in normally hearing adults have been described in a companion paper [Moulin and Kemp, "Multicomponent acoustic distortion product otoacoustic emission phase in humans. I. General characteristics," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100, 1617-1639 (1996)]. Phase-versus-frequency functions (PFF) have been recorded using two methods, depending whether f1 or f2 was swept in frequency, defining, respectively, an "f1 sweep" and an "f2 sweep" method. The present study compares 2f1-f2, 3f1-2f2, 4f1-3f2, and 2f2-f1 DPOAEs phase characteristics, and latencies obtained by these two methods. For lower sideband DPOAEs, the f2 sweep gave consistently longer latencies than the f1 sweep method, whereas no difference was obtained for the 2f2-f1 DPOAE. This suggests that the lower sideband DPOAEs and the 2f2-f1 DPOAE do not come from the same aspect of the traveling wave. The longer delay obtained with an f2 sweep is suggested to be due to an additional delay added by the proximity of the peak of the f2 traveling wave. The place-fixed and the wave-fixed models of DPOAE generation are discussed, and an "intermediate" model of DPOAE generation is introduced to explain such additional delay and the existence of phase irregularities which were observed in the PFF. The ratio of the latencies obtained by the two sweep methods is frequency dependent and a relation to cochlear frequency selectivity is suggested. Finally, analysis of the differences in latency of the different lower sideband DPOAE components allowed an estimation of the return latency of DPOAEs.

[1]  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.

[2]  L. Collet,et al.  Interrelations between transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions, spontaneous otoacoustic emissions and acoustic distortion products in normally hearing subjects , 1993, Hearing Research.

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

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

[5]  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.

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

[7]  J J Eggermont,et al.  Measuring human cochlear traveling wave delay using distortion product emission phase responses. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Sir James Lighthill,et al.  Biomechanics of Hearing Sensitivity , 1991 .

[9]  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.

[10]  Mario A. Ruggero,et al.  Two-tone distortion in the basilar membrane of the cochlea , 1991, Nature.

[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]  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.

[13]  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.

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

[15]  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.

[16]  D. Kemp,et al.  Suppression of stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[18]  A. M. Brown,et al.  Can basilar membrane tuning be inferred from distortion measurement , 1990 .

[19]  R. Probst,et al.  Suppression of the 2f 1−f 2 otoacoustic emission in humans , 1992, Hearing Research.

[20]  R. Carlyon,et al.  Acoustic distortion as a measure of frequency selectivity: relation to psychophysical equivalent rectangular bandwidth. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  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.

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

[23]  D. Kemp,et al.  Distortion product otoacoustic emission delay measurement in human ears. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  D. T. Kemp,et al.  Otoacoustic emissions, travelling waves and cochlear mechanisms , 1986, Hearing Research.

[25]  G. K. Martin,et al.  Acoustic distortion products in rabbit ear canal. II. Sites of origin revealed by suppression contours and pure-tone exposures , 1987, Hearing Research.