Advertisement

COmponents of the 2f1-f2-Distortion Product in the Ear Canal of the Bobtail Lizard

  • Geoffrey A. Manley
  • Christine Köppl
  • Brian M. Johnstone
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Biomathematics book series (LNBM, volume 87)

Abstract

Cubic distortion products (DP) in the sound field of the external auditory meatus have measured at several levels in a variety of species (e.g., Brown, 1987; Kemp and Brown, 1983, 1984, 1986; Kim et al., 1980; Lonsbury-Martin et al., 1987; Martin et al., 1987; Rosowski et al., 1984; Schmiedt and Adams, 1981; Schmiedt and Addy, 1982; Wilson, 1980; Zurek et al., 1982). The hearing organ processes acoustic stimuli which can differ enormously with reference to their sound pressure. As the ear is made up of a number of structures with different degrees of inherent nonlinearity, it is not surprising to find that the amount of distortion measurable is not only level dependent, but originates from a variety of sources (e.g., Brown, 1987; Kim et al., 1981; Rosowski et al., 1984; Whitehead et al., 1990). The distortion output in the ear canal resulting from these different sources depends in a complex way on the frequency, frequency ratio, level, and phase of the primary tones fed to the ear.

Keywords

Hair Cell Primary Level Distortion Product Basilar Papilla Hearing Organ 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, A.M. (1987) Acoustic distortion from rodent ears: a comparison of responses from rats. guinea pigs and gerbils. Hearing Res. 31. 25–38.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, A.M ., McDowell. B. and Forge. A. (1989) Acoustic distortion products can be used to monitor the effects of chronic gentamicin trealment. Hearing Res. 42.143–156Google Scholar
  3. Kemp. D.T. and Brown, A.M. (1983): A comparison of mechanical nonlinearities in the cochleae of man and gerbil from ear canal measurements. In: Hearing – physiological bases and psychophysics. pp. 82–87. Editors: R. Klinke and R. Hartman. Springer Verlag. Berlirt. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  4. Kemp. D.T. and Brown. A.M. (1984): Ear canal acoustic and round window electrical correlates of 2f dz distortion generated in the cochlea. Hearing Res. 13, 39–46.Google Scholar
  5. Kemp. D.T. and Brown. A.M. (1986): Wideband analysis of otoacoustic intennodulation. In: Peripheral auditory mechanisms. pp. 306–313. Editors: J.B. Allen. lL. Hall. A. Hubbard. S.T. Neely and A. Tubis. Springer Verlag. Heidelberg. New York. Kim. D., ., Molnar. C.E. and Matthews. lW. (1980): Cochlear mechanics: Nonlinear behavior in two–tone responses as reflected in cochlear–nerve–fiber responses and in ear–canal sound pressure. 1 Acoust. Soc. Am. 67.1704–1721.Google Scholar
  6. Kim, D., ., Zurek, P.M. and Clark, W.W. (1981) Ear-canal acoustic distortion products (2f1–fzl and (2f2:fj) can be suppressed or enhanced by a third tone. I. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 69. S51Google Scholar
  7. Koppl, C (1988) Morphology of the basilar papilla of the bobtail skink Tiliqua rugosa. Hearing Res. 35:209–228Google Scholar
  8. Koppl, C. Manley, G.A. (1990a) Peripheral auditory processing in the bobtail lizard Tiliqua rugosa. II: Tonotopic organization and innervation pattern of the basilar papilla. J Comp Physiol A 167:101–112Google Scholar
  9. Koppl, C. Manley, G.A. (1990b) Peripheral auditory processing in the bobtail lizard Tiliqua rugosa. m. Patterns of spontaneous and tone–evoked nerve–fibre activity. J Comp Physiol A 167:113– 127 Lonsbury–Martin. B.L.. Martin, G.K ., Probst. R. and Coats. A.C. (1987): Acoustic distortionGoogle Scholar
  10. products in rabbit ear canal. I. Basic features and physiological vulnerability. Hearing Res. 28. 173–189.Google Scholar
  11. Manley, G.A. Yates, G., Koppl, C. (1988) Auditory peripheral tuning: evidence for a simple resonance phenomenon in the lizard Tiliqua. Hearing Res 33:181–190Google Scholar
  12. Manley, G.A., Koppl, C. Yates, G.K. (1989) Micromechanical basis of high–frequency tuning in the bobtail lizard. In: Wilson JP. Kemp 0 (eds) Cochlear Mechanisms – Structure. Function and Models. Plenum Press. N.Y. pp. 143–150Google Scholar
  13. Manley, G.A., Koppl, C., Johnstone BM (1990a) Peripheral auditory processing in the bobtail lizard Tiliqua rugosa. I: Frequency tuning of auditory–nerve fibres. J Camp Physiol A 167:89–99Google Scholar
  14. Manley, G.A., Yates, GK. Koppl C. Johnstone BM (1990b) Peripheral auditory processing in the bobtail lizard Tiliqua rugosa. IV: Phase–locking of auditory–nerve fibres. J Comp Physiol A 167:129–138Google Scholar
  15. Martin, G.K .,, Lonsbury-Martin, B.L. Probst, R ., Scheinin. S.A. and Coats. A.C. (1987): Acoustic distortion products in rabbit ear canal. II. Sites of origin revealed by suppression contours and pure–tone exposures. Hearing Res. 28. 191–208.Google Scholar
  16. Rosowski, J.J.,, Peake, W.T. and White. lR. (1984): Cochlear nonlinearities inferred from two–tone ditortion products in the ear canal of the alligator lizard. Hearing Res. 13. 141–158.Google Scholar
  17. Schmledt, R.A. and Adams, J.C. (1981): Stimulated acoustic emissions in the ear canal of the gerbil. Hearing Res. 5. 295–305.Google Scholar
  18. Schmiedt, R.A. and Addy, C.L. (1982): Ear–canal acoustic emissions as frequency–specific indicators of cochlear function. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 72. S6.Google Scholar
  19. Smurzynski, J ., Leonard, G ., and Kim, D.,. (1990) Distortion product otoacoustic emissions: basis for an objective assessment of cochlear functional state. Abstracts 13th Midwinter Mtg. Assoc Res in Otolaryngol. p. 239Google Scholar
  20. Whitehead, M.L., Lonsbury-Martin, B.L. and Martin, O.K. (1990) Parametric features of otoacoustic distortion generation in the rabbit. Abslracts 13th Midwinter Mtg. Assoc Res in Otolaryngol. 240–241.Google Scholar
  21. Wiederhold, M.L. o. Money, J.W. and. Kellog, D.L. (1986): Acousc overstimulation reduces 2ft – f2 ~chlear emissIons at all levels m the cat. In: Penpheral auditory mechanisms. pp. 322–329.Google Scholar
  22. Editors: I.B., Allen, I.L. Hall, A. Hubbard, S.T. Neely and A. Tubis. Springer Verlag. Heidelberg. New York.Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, J.P. (1980): The comination tone, 1–f2’ in psycophysics and ear–canal recording. In: PsychophYSical. phYSIOlogical and behaVIOural studies m hearing. pp. 43–50. Editors: G. van den Brink and F.A. Bilson. Delft Univ. Press, Delft.Google Scholar
  24. Zurek, P.M.,., Clark, W.W. and Kim, D.,. (1982): The behavior of acoustic distortion products in the ear canals of chinchillas with normal or damaged ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 72.774–780.Google Scholar
  25. Furst, M., Rabinowitz, W.M., and Zurek, P.M. (1988). Ear canal acoustic distortion at 2fl–f2 from human ears: Relationship to other emissions and perceived combination tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am ., 84, 215–221.Google Scholar
  26. Norton, S.I., and Rubel, E.W. (1990). This volume.Google Scholar
  27. Whitehead, M.L., Lonsbury-Martin, B.L. and Martin, G.K. (1990). This volume.Google Scholar
  28. Wier, C.G., Pasanen, E.G. and McFadden, D. (1988). Partial dissociation of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions and distortion products during aspirin use in humans. J. Acoust. Soc. Am ., 84, 230–237.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey A. Manley
    • 1
  • Christine Köppl
    • 1
  • Brian M. Johnstone
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für ZoologieTechnical UniversityMunichGermany
  2. 2.Dept. of PhysiologyUniversity of W. AustraliaPerth.Australia

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options