Dynamic nonlinear cochlear model predictions of click-evoked otoacoustic emission suppression

A comprehensive set of results from 2-click suppression experiments on otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) have been presented by Kapadia and Lutman [Kapadia, S., Lutman, M.E., 2000a. Nonlinear temporal interactions in click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. I. Assumed model and polarity-symmetry. Hear. Res. 146, 89-100]. They found that the degree of suppression of an OAE evoked by a test click varied systematically with the timing and the level of a suppressor click, being greatest for suppressor clicks occurring some time before the test click, particularly at lower levels of suppression. Kapadia and Lutman also showed that although the general shape of the graph of suppression against suppressor click timing could be predicted by a static power law model, this did not predict the asymmetry with respect to the timing of the suppressor click. A generalised automatic gain control (AGC) is presented as a simple example of a dynamic nonlinear system. Its steady state nonlinear behaviour, as quantified by its level curve, and its dynamic behaviour, as quantified by its transient response, can be independently set by the feedback gain law and detector time constant, respectively. The previously reported suppression results, with the asymmetry in the timing, are found to be predicted better by such an AGC having a level curve with a slope of about 0.5 dB/dB, and a detector time constant of about twice the period at the characteristic frequency. Although this gives adequate predictions for high suppression levels, it under predicts the suppression and the asymmetry for lower levels. Further research is required to establish whether simple peripheral feedback models can explain OAE suppression of this type.

[1]  Eberhard Zwicker,et al.  A hardware cochlear nonlinear preprocessing model with active feedback. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  J. P. Wilson,et al.  Evidence for a cochlear origin for acoustic re-emissions, threshold fine-structure and tonal tinnitus , 1980, Hearing Research.

[3]  L. Collet,et al.  Effect of interstimulus interval on evoked otoacoustic emissions , 1995, Hearing Research.

[4]  E. Zwicker,et al.  A model describing nonlinearities in hearing by active processes with saturation at 40 dB , 1979, Biological Cybernetics.

[5]  E. Lopez-Poveda,et al.  A human nonlinear cochlear filterbank. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Mark E Lutman,et al.  Nonlinear temporal interactions in click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. I. Assumed model and polarity-symmetry , 2000, Hearing Research.

[7]  Mark E Lutman,et al.  Nonlinear temporal interactions in click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. II. Experimental data , 2000, Hearing Research.

[8]  W. S. Rhode,et al.  Study of mechanical motions in the basal region of the chinchilla cochlea. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  D. T. Kemp,et al.  Properties of the generator of stimulated acoustic emissions , 1980, Hearing Research.

[10]  F Grandori,et al.  Non-linearities of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions and the derived non-linear technique. , 1993, British journal of audiology.

[11]  G. Long,et al.  Relaxation dynamics of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions perturbed by external tones. I. Response to pulsed single-tone suppressors. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  E. Lopez-Poveda,et al.  A computational algorithm for computing nonlinear auditory frequency selectivity. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  E de Boer,et al.  Self-suppression in a locally active nonlinear model of the cochlea: a quasilinear approach. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[15]  A Tubis,et al.  Wiener kernel analysis of inner ear function in the American bullfrog. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  D H Keefe,et al.  Double-evoked otoacoustic emissions. II. Intermittent noise rejection, calibration and ear-canal measurements. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  R. R. Pfeiffer,et al.  A model for two-tone inhibition of single cochlear-nerve fibers. , 1970, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  S Rosen,et al.  Auditory filter nonlinearity at 2 kHz in normal hearing listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  E. de Boer,et al.  On cochlear encoding: Potentialities and limitations of the reverse‐correlation technique , 1978 .

[20]  G. K. Yates,et al.  Basilar membrane nonlinearity and its influence on auditory nerve rate-intensity functions , 1990, Hearing Research.

[21]  Z Kevanishvili,et al.  Effects of the conditioning click on click-evoked otoacoustic emission. , 1996, Scandinavian audiology.

[22]  W J Murphy,et al.  Relaxation dynamics of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions perturbed by external tones. II. Suppression of interacting emissions. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Richard F. Lyon,et al.  An analog electronic cochlea , 1988, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[24]  Wiener kernel analysis of a noise-evoked otoacoustic emission. , 1997, British journal of audiology.

[25]  Upward shifts in the masking pattern with increasing masker intensity. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Brian R Glasberg,et al.  Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data , 1990, Hearing Research.

[27]  E. Krieg,et al.  Relaxation dynamics of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions perturbed by external tones. III. Response to a single tone at multiple suppression levels. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  Richard F. Lyon,et al.  Automatic Gain Control in Cochlear Mechanics , 1990 .

[29]  Douglas H. Keefe,et al.  Double-evoked otoacoustic emissions. I. Measurement theory and nonlinear coherence , 1998 .

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

[31]  P. Dijk,et al.  Dissecting the frog inner ear with Gaussian noise. I. Application of high-order Wiener-kernel analysis , 1997, Hearing Research.