Advertisement

Journal of comparative physiology

, Volume 82, Issue 2, pp 179–194 | Cite as

Rebound excitation (Off-responses) following non-neural suppression in the cochleas of echolocating bats

  • Alan D. Grinnell
Article

Summary

Auditory nerve evoked potential responses (N1) occur at the termination of tone pips as well as the onset in several species of bats that emit orientation sounds having a constant frequency component of several msec duration.
  1. 2.

    These “off”-responses are present only in a narrow band of frequencies around the emitted constant frequency. The “on”-response is most sensitive at slightly lower or higher frequencies and shows a relative null at the best frequency for the “off” (Fig. 2).

     
  2. 3.

    The “off”-response is similar in waveform to the “on” response, and follows the termination of a tone pip with a latency (0.9 ±0.1 msec) indistinguishable from that with which the “on”-response follows the onset of the signal (Fig. 1).

     
  3. 4.

    “Off”-responses are seen at signal durations as short as 0.5msec and are typically maximal with a signal duration of only 2 msec. Summation of “on” and “off” responses at durations shorter than 1.5 msec suggests that separate populations of units are contributing to the two responses.

     
  4. 5.

    Many single units at higher neural levels respond only to the “off ” of a signal of the frequency that produces an N1 “off ” evoked potential, and only to the onset of a slightly lower frequency that produces a maximal “on” evoked potential (Fig. 3).

     
  5. 6.

    A frequency that produces “off”-responses can either suppress or enhance the “on”-response to a lower frequency tone pip, depending on the relative intensity of the two sounds (Fig. 4). The suppression probably represents a form of two-tone inhibition comparable to that seen in other mammals. Similar enhancement has not been reported in other mammals, however. The “off”-response appears to represent rebound excitation of cells tuned to slightly lower frequencies than the suppressant tone.

     
  6. 7.

    The “off”-response is most sensitive to masking by frequencies that elicit maximal “on”-responses, well below those that produce a maximal “off”-response (Fig. 5).

     
  7. 8.

    It is concluded that the suppression is unlikely to be mediated by chemical neural inhibition. The properties of the “off” response appear compatible with a mechanism whereby vibration of a certain part of the basilar partition causes an electrical or mechanical bias that reduces spontaneous activity in a population of primary fibers innervating an adjacent part of the partition, possibly by reducing tonic hair cell transmitter release, with termination of this suppression resulting in synchonous resumption of spontaneous firing at normal or greater than normal rate.

     
  8. 9.

    The apparent function of this interaction in the constant frequency emitting bats is a peripheral sharpening of frequency resolution, and a “sensitization” of primary afferent pathways to the lower frequencies of the downward sweep at the end of the emitted pulses.

     

Keywords

Hair Cell Auditory Nerve Constant Frequency Signal Duration Spontaneous Firing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arthur, R. M., Pfeiffer, R. R., Suga, N.: Properties of “two-tone inhibition” in primary auditory neurones. J. Physiol. (Lond.)212, 593–609 (1971).Google Scholar
  2. Békésy, G. von: Description of some mechanical properties of the organ of Corti. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.25, 770–785 (1953).Google Scholar
  3. Békésy, G. von: Experiments in hearing, trans. & ed. by E. G. Wever. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1960.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, M. V. L.: Electrolocation in fish. Ann. N.Y. Aoad. Sci.188, 242–269 (1971).Google Scholar
  5. Friend, J. G., Suga, N., Suthers, R. A.: Neural responses in the inferior colliculus of echolocating bats to artificial orientation sounds and echoes. J. cell Physiol.67, 319–332 (1966).Google Scholar
  6. Frishkopf, L. S.: Excitation and inhibition of primary auditory neurons in the little brown bat. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.36, 1016 (A) (1964).Google Scholar
  7. Frishkopf, L. S., Goldstein, M. H., Jr.: Response to acoustic stimuli from single units in the Eight nerve of the bullfrog. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.35, 1219–1228 (1963).Google Scholar
  8. Furukawa, T., Ishii, Y.: Neurophysiological studies of hearing in goldfish. J. Neurophysiol.30, 1377–1403 (1967).Google Scholar
  9. Goldberg, J. M., Fernandez, C.: Physiology of peripheral neurons innervating semicircular canals of the squirrel monkey. I. Resting discharge and response to constant angular accelerations. J. Neurophysiol.34, 635–660 (1971).Google Scholar
  10. Grinnell, A. D.: The neurophysiology of audition in bats: intensity and frequency parameters. J. Physiol. (Lond.)167, 38–66 (1963).Google Scholar
  11. Grinnell, A. D.: Mechanisms of overcoming interference in echolocating animals. In: Animal sonar systems, ed. R.-G. Busnel, p. 451–481. Jouy-en-Josas, France: Imprimerie Louis Jean (Gap) 1967.Google Scholar
  12. Grinnell, A. D.: Comparative auditory neurophysiology of neotropical bats employing different echolocation signals. Z. vergl. Physiol.68, 117–153 (1970).Google Scholar
  13. Grinnell, A. D., Hagiwara, S.: Adaptations of the auditory system for echolocation: studies of New Guinea bats. Z. vergl. Physiol.76, 41–81 (1972).Google Scholar
  14. Hagiwara, S., Kusano, K., Negishi, K.: Physiological properties of electroreceptors of some gymnotids. J. Neurophysiol.25, 430–449 (1962).Google Scholar
  15. Hartline, H. D., Wagner, H. G., Ratliff, F.: Inhibition in the eye of Limulus. J. gen. Physiol.39, 651–673 (1956).Google Scholar
  16. Hind, J. E., Anderson, D. J., Brugge, J. F., Rose, J. E.: Coding of information pertaining to paired low frequency tones in single auditory nerve fibers of the squirrel monkey. J. Neurophysiol.39, 794–816 (1967).Google Scholar
  17. Honrubia, V., Ward, P. H.: Properties of the summating potential of the guinea pig's cochlea. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.45, 1443–1450 (1969).Google Scholar
  18. Johnstone, B. M., Boyle, A. J. F.: Basilar membrane vibration examined with the Mössbauer technique. Science158, 390–391 (1967).Google Scholar
  19. Katsuki, Y., Suga, N., Kanno, Y.: Neural mechanisms of the peripheral and central auditory system in monkeys. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.34, 1396–1410 (1962).Google Scholar
  20. Katsuki, Y., Watanabe, T., Suga, N.: Interaction of auditory neurons in response to two sound stimuli in cat. J. Nenrphysiol.22, 603–623 (1959).Google Scholar
  21. Kiang, N. Y.-S., Watanabe, T., Thomas, E. C., Clark, L. F.: Discharge patterns of single fibers in the cat's auditory nerve. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press 1965.Google Scholar
  22. Konishi, T., Teas, D. C., Wernick, J. S.: Effects of electrical current applied to cochlear partition on discharges in individual auditory-nerve fibers. I. Prolonged direct-current polarization. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.47, 1519–1526 (1970).Google Scholar
  23. Konishi, T., Yusano, T.: Summating potential of the cochlea in the guinea pig. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.35, 1448–1452 (1963).Google Scholar
  24. Kuffler, S. W.: Discharge patterns and functional organization of mammalian retina. J. Neurophysiol.16, 37–48 (1953).Google Scholar
  25. Liff, H. J., Goldstein, H. H., Jr.: Peripheral inhibition in auditory fibers in the frog. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.47, 1538–1547 (1970).Google Scholar
  26. Löwenstein, O., Sand, A.: The mechanism of the semicircular canal. A study of the responses of single-fiber preparations to angular accelerations and to rotation at constant speed. Proc. roy. Soc. B129, 256–275 (1940).Google Scholar
  27. Neuweiler, G.: Neurophysiologische Untersuchungen zum Echoortungssystem der Großen HufeisennaseRhinolophus ferrum-equinum Schreber 1774. Z. vergl. Physiol.67, 273–306 (1970).Google Scholar
  28. Neuweiler, G., Schuller, G., Schnitzler, H.-U.: On and off-responses in the inferior colliculus of the greater horseshoe bat to pure tones. Z. vergl. Physiol.74, 57–63 (1971).Google Scholar
  29. Nomoto, M., Suga, N., Katsuki, Y.: Discharge patterns and inhibition of primary auditory nerve fibers in the monkey. J. Neurophysiol.27, 768–787 (1964).Google Scholar
  30. Pollak, G., Henson, O. W., Jr., Novick, A.: Cochlear microphonic audiograms in the “pure tone” batChilonycteris parnellii parnellii. Science176, 66–68 (1972).Google Scholar
  31. Rhode, W. S.: Observations of the vibration of the basilar membrane in squirrel monkeys using the Mössbauer technique. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.49, 1218–1231 (1971).Google Scholar
  32. Rupert, A., Moushegian, G., Galambos, R.: Unit response to sound from auditory nerve of the cat. J. Neurophysiol.26, 449–465 (1963).Google Scholar
  33. Sachs, M. B.: Stimulus response relation for auditory-nerve fibers: two tone stimuli. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.45, 1025–1036 (1969).Google Scholar
  34. Sachs, M. B., Kiang, N. Y.-S.: Two-tone inhibition in auditory nerve fibers. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.43, 1120–1128 (1968).Google Scholar
  35. Sandel, T. T., Kiang, N. Y.-S.: Off-responses from the auditory cortex of anesthetized oats: effects of stimulus parameters. Arch. ital. Biol.99, 105–120 (1961).Google Scholar
  36. Tasaki, I., Fernandez, C.: Modification of cochlear microphonics and action potentials by KCL solution and by direct current. J. Neurophysiol.15, 497–512 (1952).Google Scholar
  37. Tonndorf, J.: Shearing motion in scala media of cochlear models. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.32, 328–344 (1960).Google Scholar
  38. Tonndorf, J.: Nonlinearities in cochlear hydrodynamics. J. acoust. Soc. Amer.47, 579–591 (1970).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan D. Grinnell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUCLALos Angeles

Personalised recommendations