Systemic Injection of Furosemide Alters the Mechanical Response to Sound of the Basilar Membrane

  • Mario A. Ruggero
  • Nola C. Rich
Part of the Lecture Notes in Biomathematics book series (LNBM, volume 87)


A widely-held view of mammalian cochlear function is that the basilar membrane and the outer hair cells sustain a bidirectional (feedback) relationship, such that basilar membrane vibrations induce receptor potentials in outer hair cells which, in turn, boost the mechanical response of the basilar membrane at low sound levels in a frequency-selective manner [e.g., Kemp, 1978; Kim et al., 1980; Weiss, 1982; Davis, 1983; for recent review, see Dallos, 1988]. Most evidence for this hypothesis is not based on recordings of basilar membrane responses, but rather on the study of the effects of cochlear manipulations, including stimulation of the efferent system and destruction of hair cells, upon the responses to sound of cochlear afferents [e.g., Kim et al., 1980; Wiederhold and Kiang, 1970; Dallos and Harris, 1978; Liberman and Dodds, 1984; Kiang et al., 1986] and inner hair cells [Brown et al., 1983], and upon otoacoustic emissions [Anderson and Kemp, 1979; Mountain, 1980; Siegel and Kim, 1982; Hubbard and Mountain, 1983; Guinan, 1986; Mountain and Hubbard, 1989]. The discovery of ill vitro motility of isolated outer hair cells provides additional circumstantial evidence [e.g., Brownell et al., 1985; Ashmore, 1987]. The only direct support for the hypothesis (i.e., involving measurements of basilar membrane responses) has come from the observations that surgical manipulations that are necessary for recording basilar membrane vibrations frequently lead to cochlear dysfunction [Khanna and Leonard, 1982] and that, when such manipulations leave the cochlea initially relatively intact, deterioration of mechanical responses can be induced by acoustic trauma [Patuzzi et al., 1984] and also occurs with the passage of time and/or death [Rhode, 1973; Sellick et al., 1982; Robles et al., 1986]. However, while consistent with the view that the state of the organ of Corti influences the mechanical behavior of the basilar membrane, these observations fail to identify the relevant cellular elements because they are based on cochlear insults that are nonspecific and irreversible.


Hair Cell Outer Hair Cell Basilar Membrane Tuning Curve Compound Action Potential 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, S. D. and Kemp, D. T. (1978) The evoked cochlear mechanical response in laboratory primates. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 224, 47–54.Google Scholar
  2. Ashmore, J. F. (1987) A fast motile response in guinea–pig outer hair cells: the cellular basis of the cochlear amplifier. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 388, 323–347.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, M. C., Nuttall, A. L. and Masta, R. I. (1983) Intracellular recordings from cochlear inner hair cells: effects of stimulation of the crossed olivocochlear efferents. Science 222, 69–72.Google Scholar
  4. Brownell, W. E., Bader, C. R., Bertrand, D. and de Ribaupierre, Y. (1985) Evoked mechanical responses of isolated cochlear outer hair cells. Science 227, 194–196.Google Scholar
  5. Brusilow, S. W. (1976) Propanolol antagonism to the effect of furosemide on the composition of endolymph in guinea pigs. Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacal. 54, 42–48.Google Scholar
  6. Chodynicki, S. and Kostrzewska, A. (1974) Wplyw furosemidu i kwasu etakrynowego na potencjal endolimfatyczny swinki morskiej (Effects of furosemide and ethacrynic acid on the endolymph potential in guinea pigs). Otolaryngol. Pol. 28, 5–8.Google Scholar
  7. Dallos, P. (1988) Cochlear neurobiology: some key experiments and concepts of the past two decades. In: Auditory Function: Neurobiological Bases of Hearing (Eds: Edelman, G. M., Gall, W. E. and Cowan, W. M.) Wiley, N.Y., pp. 153–188.Google Scholar
  8. Dallos, P. and Harris, D. M. (1978) Properties of auditory nerve responses in absence of outer hair cells. J. Neurophysiol. 41, 365–383.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, II. (1965) A model for transducer action in the cochlea. In: Cold Spring IIarb. Symp. Quant. BioI. 30, 181–189.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, II. (1983) An active process in cochlear mechanics. Hear. Res. 9, 79–90.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, E. F. and Klinke, R (1982) The effects of intracochlear and systemic furosemide on the properties of single cochlear nerve fibres in the cat. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 331,409–428.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, W. I., Bielinski, T. C. and Mattis, P. A. (1973) Cochlear microphonic potential response of the dog to diuretic compounds. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 25, 259–266.Google Scholar
  13. Guinan, J. J., Jr. (1986) Effect of efferent neural activity on cochlear mechanics. Scand. Audiol. Suppl. 25,5M2.Google Scholar
  14. Hubbard, A. E. and Mountain, D. C. (1983) Alternating current delivered into the scala media alters sound pressure at the eardrum. Science 222, 510–512. Kemp, D. T. (1978) Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 64,1386–1391. Khanna, S. M. and Leonard, D. G. B. (1982) Basilar membrane tuning in the cat cochlea. Science 215, 305–306.Google Scholar
  15. Kiang, N. Y. S., Liberman, M. C, Sewell, W. F. and Guinan, J. J. (1986) Single unit clues to cochlear mechanisms. Hear. Res. 22, 171–182.Google Scholar
  16. Kim, D.,., Molnar, C. E. and Matthews, J. W. (1980) Cochlear mechanics: nonlinear behavior in twotone responses as reflected in cochlear–nerve–fiber responses and in ear–canal sound pressure. 1. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67,1704–1721.Google Scholar
  17. Liberman, M. C. and Dodds, L. W. (1984) Single–neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. III. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves. Hear. Res. 16,55–74.Google Scholar
  18. Lim, D. J. (1986) Functional structure of the organ of Corti: a review. Hear. Res. 22,117–146.Google Scholar
  19. Mathog, R H., Thomas, W. G. and Hudson, W. R (1970) Ototoxicity of new and potent dlUrelIcs. Arch. Otolaryngol. 92, 7–13.Google Scholar
  20. Mountain, D.C. (1980) Changes in endolymphatic potential and crossed ohvocochlear bundle stimulation alter cochlear mechanics. Science 210, 71–72.Google Scholar
  21. Mountain, D. C. and Hubbard, A. E. (1989) Rapid force production in the cochlea. Hear. Res. 42, 195– 202.Google Scholar
  22. Mountain, D. C., Hubbard, A E. and McMullen, T. A (1983) Electromechanical processes in the cochlea. In: Mechanics of Hearing (Eds: de Boer, E. and Viergever, M. A) Delft Univ. Press, Delft, The Netherlands, pp. 119–126.Google Scholar
  23. Patuzzi, R., Johnstone, B. M. and Sellick, P. M. (1984) The alteration of the VibratIOn of the basilar membrane produced by loud sound. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 13, 99–100.Google Scholar
  24. Patuzzi, R B., Yates, G. K and Johnstone, B. M. (1989) Outer hair receptor currents and sensorineural hearing loss. Hear. Res. 42, 47–72.Google Scholar
  25. Rhode, W. S. (1973) An investigation of post-mortem cochlear mechanics using the Mossbauer effect. In: Basic Mechanisms in Hearing (Ed: Mclier, A R) Academic Press, New York, pp. 49–63.Google Scholar
  26. Robles, L., Ruggero, M.A. and Rich, N.C. (1986) Basilar membrane mechanics at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. I. Input–output functions, tuning curves, and response phases. 1. ACGust. Soc. Am. 80, 1364–1374.Google Scholar
  27. Ruggero, M. A and Rich, N. C. (1983) Chinchilla auditory–nerve responses to low–frequency tones. 1. Acousl. Soc. Am. 73, 2096–2108.Google Scholar
  28. Ruggero, M. A and Rich, N. C. (1990a) Application of laser velocimetry to the measurement of basilar membrane vibrations. 1. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87, 5101.Google Scholar
  29. Ruggero, M. A. and Rich, N. C. (1990b) Application of a commercially–manufactured Doppler–shift laser velocimeter to the measurement of basilar–membrane vibration. Hear. Res., in press.Google Scholar
  30. Russell, I. J. (1983) Origin of the receptor potential in inner hair cells of the mammalian cochlea – evidence for Davis’ theory. Nature 301, 334–336.Google Scholar
  31. Russell, I. J. and Sellick, P. M. (1978) Intracellular studies of hair cells in the mammalian cochlea. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 284, 261–290.Google Scholar
  32. Ryak, L. P. (1982) Pathophysiology of furosemide ototoxicity. J. Otolaryngol. 11, 127–133.Google Scholar
  33. Sellick, P.M., Patuzzi, R. and Johnstone, B.M. (1982) Measurement of basilar membrane motion in the guinea pig using the Mosshauer technique. J. Acous!. Soc. Am. 72, 131–141.Google Scholar
  34. Sewell, W.F. (1984) The effects of furosemide on the endocochlear potential and auditory–nerve fiber tuning curves in cats. Hear. Res. 14, 305–314. Siegel, J.H. and Kim, D.,. (1982) Efferent neural control of cochlear mechanics? Olivocochlear bundle stimulation affects cochlear biomechanical nonlinearity. Hear. Res. 6, 171–182.Google Scholar
  35. Weiss, T. (1982) Bidirectional transduction in vertebrate hair cells; a mechanism for coupling mechanical and electrical processes. IIear. Res. 7, 353–360.Google Scholar
  36. Wiederhold, M. L. and Kiang, N. Y. S. (1970) Effects of electric stimulation of the crossed olivocochlear bundle on single auditory–nerve fibers in the cat. 1. Acoust. Soc. Am. 48, 950–965.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mario A. Ruggero
    • 1
  • Nola C. Rich
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OtolaryngologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations