Advertisement

Cochlear Compression: Recent Insights from Behavioural Experiments

  • Christopher J. Plack
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (volume 787)

Abstract

Although physiological measures have provided a great deal of ­information about the basilar membrane (BM) response of non-human mammals, it is only relatively recently that behavioural techniques have allowed researchers to measure accurately the non-linear characteristics of the human BM. These techniques are based on forward masking, in which the threshold for detecting a signal is measured in the presence of a prior masking sound. Two popular techniques, the growth of forward masking technique and the temporal masking curve technique, rely on the fact that compression in the base of the cochlea is largely restricted to frequencies close to the characteristic frequency (CF) of each place. By comparing the response to a masker with a frequency equal to that of the signal with the response to a lower-frequency masker, it is possible to infer the CF response. These measures have shown that BM compression in humans matches that of other mammals and that compression is absent in listeners with moderate-to-severe cochlear hearing loss, probably reflecting outer hair cell dysfunction. Another technique, the additivity of forward masking (AFM) technique, does not rely on a comparison between on- and off-frequency maskers, but instead measures the effect on threshold of combining two nonoverlapping maskers, an effect which is magnified by compression. The difference between thresholds in the single- and combined-masker conditions can be used to estimate compression. The AFM technique has provided evidence that strong compression extends down to low CFs in humans, a finding inconsistent with direct measures of the BM response in other mammals. Furthermore, recent AFM results suggest that there may be an additional source of compression central to the BM. This more central compression also appears to be affected by hearing loss and may reflect non-linear processes in the transduction mechanism of the inner hair cells.

Keywords

Outer Hair Cell Basilar Membrane Masker Level Forward Masker Basilar Membrane Response 
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.

References

  1. Cheatham MA, Dallos P (2001) Inner hair cell response patterns: implications for low-frequency hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 110:2034–2044PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Jennings SG, Strickland EA, Heinz MG (2009) Precursor effects on behavioral estimates of frequency selectivity and gain in forward masking. J Acoust Soc Am 125:2172–2181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kros CJ, Crawford AC (1990) Potassium currents in inner hair cells isolated from the guinea-pig cochlea. J Physiol 421:263–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Lopez-Poveda EA, Eustaquio-Martin A (2006) A biophysical model of the inner hair cell: the contribution of potassium currents to peripheral auditory compression. J Ass Res Otolaryngol 7:218–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lopez-Poveda EA, Plack CJ, Meddis R (2003) Cochlear nonlinearity between 500 and 8000 Hz in listeners with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 113:951–960PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Nelson DA, Schroder AC (2004) Peripheral compression as a function of stimulus level and frequency region in normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 115:2221–2233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nelson DA, Schroder AC, Wojtczak M (2001) A new procedure for measuring peripheral compression in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 110:2045–2064PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Oxenham AJ, Plack CJ (1997) A behavioral measure of basilar-membrane nonlinearity in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 101:3666–3675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Patuzzi R, Sellick PM (1983) A comparison between basilar membrane and inner hair cell receptor potential input–output functions in the guinea pig cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 74:1734–1741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Plack CJ, Arifianto D (2010) On- and off-frequency compression estimated using a new version of the additivity of forward masking technique. J Acoust Soc Am 128:771–786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Plack CJ, Drga V (2003) Psychophysical evidence for auditory compression at low characteristic frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 113:1574–1586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Plack CJ, O’Hanlon CG (2003) Forward masking additivity and auditory compression at low and high frequencies. J Ass Res Otolaryngol 4:405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Plack CJ, Drga V, Lopez-Poveda EA (2004) Inferred basilar-membrane response functions for listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 115:1684–1695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Plack CJ, Oxenham AJ, Simonson A, O’Hanlon CG, Drga V, Arifianto D (2008) Estimates of compression at low and high frequencies using masking additivity in normal and impaired ears. J Acoust Soc Am 123:4321–4330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rhode WS, Cooper NP (1996) Nonlinear mechanics in the apical turn of the chinchilla cochlea in vivo. Aud Neurosci 3:101–121Google Scholar
  16. Ruggero MA, Rich NC, Recio A, Narayan SS, Robles L (1997) Basilar-membrane responses to tones at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 101:2151–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychological SciencesThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations