Simultaneous suppression of tone burst-evoked otoacoustic emissions – Effect of level and presentation paradigm

There is conflict in the literature over whether individual frequency components of a transient-evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) are generated within relatively independent "channels" along the basilar membrane (BM), or whether each component may be generated by widespread areas of the BM. Two previous studies on TEOAE suppression are consistent with generation within largely independent channels, but with a degree of interaction between nearby channels. However, both these studies reported significant suppression only at high stimulus levels, at which the "nonlinear" presentation paradigm was used. The present study clarifies the separate influences of stimulus level and presentation paradigm on this type of suppression. TEOAEs were recorded using stimulus tone bursts at 1, 2 and 3 kHz and a complex stimulus consisting of a digital addition of the three tone bursts, over a range of stimulus levels and both "linear" and "nonlinear" presentation paradigms. Responses to the individual tone bursts were combined offline and compared with responses to the complex stimuli. Results clearly demonstrate that TEOAE suppression under these conditions is dependent upon stimulus level, and not upon presentation paradigm. It is further argued that the data support the "local" rather than "widespread" model of TEOAE generation, subject to nonlinear interactions between nearby generation channels.

[1]  G A Tavartkiladze,et al.  Ipsilateral suppression effects on transient evoked otoacoustic emission. , 1994, British journal of audiology.

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

[3]  Paul J Kolston The importance of phase data and model dimensionality to cochlear mechanics , 2000, Hearing Research.

[4]  M. Spies,et al.  Elastic wave propagation in transversely isotropic media. II. The generalized Rayleigh function and an integral representation for the transducer field. Theory , 1995 .

[5]  S. Neely,et al.  A model for active elements in cochlear biomechanics. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[7]  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.

[8]  P. Avan,et al.  Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions and the influence of high-frequency hearing losses in humans. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  J. Smurzyński,et al.  Suppression of tone burst evoked otoacoustic emissions in relation to frequency separation , 2000, Hearing Research.

[10]  Paul Avan,et al.  Effect of click intensity on click-evoked otoacoustic emission waveforms: implications for the origin of emissions , 2003, Hearing Research.

[11]  D T Kemp,et al.  A Guide to the Effective Use of Otoacoustic Emissions , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[12]  Robert H Withnell,et al.  Delay dependence for the origin of the nonlinear derived transient evoked otoacoustic emission. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Christopher A Shera,et al.  Mechanisms of Mammalian Otoacoustic Emission and their Implications for the Clinical Utility of Otoacoustic Emissions , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[14]  Martin S. Robinette,et al.  Otoacoustic Emissions: Clinical Applications , 1997 .

[15]  Do click-evoked otoacoustic emissions have frequency specificity? , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Xu Li,et al.  Peripheral analysis of frequency in human ears revealed by tone burst evoked otoacoustic emissions , 1994, Hearing Research.

[17]  Dawn Konrad-Martin,et al.  Transient-evoked stimulus-frequency and distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in normal and impaired ears. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[19]  G K Yates,et al.  Enhancement of the transient-evoked otoacoustic emission produced by the addition of a pure tone in the guinea pig. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  N. Cooper,et al.  Two-tone suppression in cochlear mechanics. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Dawn Konrad-Martin,et al.  Time-frequency analyses of transient-evoked stimulus-frequency and distortion-product otoacoustic emissions: testing cochlear model predictions. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  S. Neely,et al.  Click- and tone-burst-evoked otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[24]  G. K. Martin,et al.  Spontaneous, click-, and toneburst-evoked otoacoustic emissions from normal ears , 1986, Hearing Research.

[25]  Evoked acoustic emission: clinical application. , 1985, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[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.