2f1–F2 distortion product otoacoustic emissions in white leghorn chickens (gallus domesticus): Effects of frequency ratio and relative level

Audiology and Neuro-Otology

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 197-213

  Burkarcl, Robert ^a   Salvi, Richard ^a   Chen, Lin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Chicken; F2 f1 ratio; Nonlinearity; Otoacoustic emissions

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; AUDITORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CHICKEN; HAIR CELL; HEARING; PERCEPTION DISORDER; PHYSIOLOGY; SOUND DETECTION; SPONTANEOUS OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ANIMALS; AUDITORY PATHWAYS; CHICKENS; HAIR CELLS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; OTOACOUSTIC EMISSIONS, SPONTANEOUS; PERCEPTUAL DISTORTION; PITCH PERCEPTION; SOUND SPECTROGRAPHY;

EID: 0030178302     PISSN: 14203030     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000259202     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Corwin J. Cotanchc D: Regeneration ofsensory hair cells after acoustic trauma. Science 1988:240:1772-1774.
2. Cruz R. Lambert P. Rubel E: Light microscopic evidence of hair cell regeneration after gentamicin toxicity in chick cochlea. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1987:113:1058-1062.
3. Hashino E, Tanaka Y, Sokabe M: Hair cell damage and recovery following chronic application of kana-mycin in the chick cochlea. Hear Res 1991:52:356-368.
4. Henry W, Makaretz M, Saunders J, Schneider M, Vrctakos P: Hair cell loss and regeneration after exposure to intense sounds in neonatal chicks. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988: 98:607-611.
5. Rvals B. Rubel E: I lair cell regeneration after acoustic trauma in adult Coturnix quail. Science 1988:240: 1774-1776.
6. Rubel E: Regeneration of hair cells in the avian inner ear: in Dancer A. Henderson D. Salvi R. Hamemik R (eds): Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. Boston. Mosby, 1992, pp 204-227.
7. Froymovich O, Rebala V, Salvi R, Rassacl H: Long term effects of acoustic trauma on distortion piod-uct otoacoustic emissions in chickens. J Acoust Soc Am 1995:97: 3021-3029.
8. Harris F, Lonsbury-Martin B, Coats A, Martin G: Acoustic distortion products in humans: Systematic changes in amplitude as a function of f2/f1 ratio. J Acoust Soc Am 1989: 85:220-229.
9. Wiederhold M. Mahoney W. Kellogg D: Acoustic overstimulation reduces 21',-f: cochlear emissions at all levels in the cat; in Allen J. Hall J. Hubbard A. Neely S. Tubis A (cds); Peripheral Auditory' Mechanisms. Berlin. Springer. 1986, pp 322-329.
10. Whitehead M, Lonsbury-Martin B, Martin G: Actively and passively generated acoustic distortion at 2f; in rabbits; in Dallos P. Geisler D. Matthews J. Ruggero M. Steele C (eds): Mechanics and Biophysics of Hearing. New' York. Springer-Ver-lag, 1990. pp 243-250.
11. Manley G. Taschenberger G; Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions from a bird: A preliminary' report; in Duífhuis H. Horst J. van Dijk P. van Ncttcn S (cds): Biophysics of Hair Cell Sensory Systems. Singapore. World Scientific Publishing. 1993, pp 33-39.
12. Powers N, Salvi R, Wang J, Spongr V, Qiu C: Elevation of auditory thresholds by spontaneous cochlear oscillations. Nature 1995:375:585-587.
13. Chen I.: Discharge patterns in cochlear ganglion neurons of chickens following acoustic trauma: Tuning curves, spontaneous activity and two-tone rate suppression boundaries; unpubl diss, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1995.
14. Kettembcil S, Manley G, Siegl E,: Distortion product otoacoustic emissions and their anesthesia sensitivity in the European starling and the chicken. Hear Res 1995;86:47-62.
15. Nielson L. Popelka G, Rasmussen A, Ostcrhammcl P: Clinical significance of probe-tone frequency ratio on distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Scand Audio! 1993:22: 159-164.
16. Wilson J: The combination tone. 2f,-fi, in psychophysics and car-canal recording: in van den Brink G. Bilson F (eds): Psychophysical, Physiological, and Behavioral Studies in Hearing. Delft. Delft University, 1980. pp 43-52.
17. Kim D: Cochlear mechanics: Implications of electrophysiological and acoustical observations. Hear Res 1980;2:297-317.
18. Lonsbury-Martin B. Martin G. Probst R. Coats A: Acoustic distortion products in rabbit ear canal. I. Basic features and physiological vulnerability. Hear Res 1987:28:173-189.
19. Whitehead M. Lonsbury-Martin B. Martin G: Evidence for two discrete sources of 2f,-f> distortion-product otoacoustic emission in rabbit. I. Differential dependence on stimulus parameters. J Acoust Soc Am 1992:91:1587-1607.
20. Norton S, Rubel E: Active and passive ADP components in mammalian and avian ears; in Geisler D. Dal-los P. Matthews J. Ruggero M (eds): Mechanics and Biophysics of Hearing. New York. Springer-Verlag. 1990. pp 219-226.
21. Manley G. Gleich O. Kaiser A. Brix J: Functional differentiation of sensory cells in the avian auditory' periphery. J Comp Physiol [A] 1989: 164:289-296.
22. Manley G: Peripheral Hearing Mechanisms in Reptiles and Birds. New York. Springer-Verlag, 1990.
23. Probst R. Lonsbury-Martin B. Martin G: A review of otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 1991:89: 2027-2067.
24. Mountain D. Hubbard A: Rapid force production in the cochlea. Hear Res 1989:42:195-202.
25. Brown A: Acoustic distortion from rodent ears: A comparison of responses from rats, guinea pigs and gerbils. Hear Res 1987;31:25-38.
26. Brix J. Manley G: Mechanical and electromotile properties of the ste-reovillar bundles of isolated and cultured hair cells of the chicken. Hear Res 1994;76:147-157.
27. Jaramillo F. Markin V. Hudspeth A: Auditory illusions and the single hair cell. Nature 1993:364:527-529.
28. Kcppler C, Schermuly L, Klinke R: The course and morphology of efferent nerve fibers in the papilla basi-laris of the pigeon (Cohunba livid). Hear Res 1994:74:259-264.
29. von During M. Andres K. Simon K: The comparative anatomy of the basilar papillae in birds. Fortschr Zool 1985:30:681-685.
30. Siegel J. Kim D: Cochlear biomechanics: Vulnerability to acoustic trauma and other alterations as seen in neural responses and ear-canal sound pressure: in Hamemik R, Henderson D. Salvi R (eds): New' Perspectives on Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. New York, Raven Press. 1982. pp 137-151.
31. Siegel J. Kim D: Efferent neural control of cochlear mechanics? Olivocochlear bundle stimulation affects cochlear biomechanical nonlinearity. Hear Res 1982:6:171-182.
32. Kawa S. Glattke T, Fallon M, Bobbin R: Contralateral sound suppresses distortion product otoacoustic emissions through cholinergic mechanisms. Hear Res 1993:68:97-106.
33. Larsen O. Dooling R: Intracranial air pressure modifies hearing in birds. Abstr Assoc Res Otolaryngol 1996:19:197.
34. Probst R: Otoacoustic emissions: An overview; in Pfaltz C (ed): New Aspects of Cochlear Mechanics and Inner Ear Pathophysiology. Adv Oto-rhinolaryngol. Basel. Karger. 1990, vol 44. pp 1-91.
35. Wilson I, Baker R, Whitehead M: Otoacoustic emissions in frogs; in Grandori F, Cianlrone G. Kemp D (eds): Cochlear Mechanisms and Otoacoustic Emissions. Adv Audiol. Basel. Karger. 1990, vol 7, pp 47-56.
36. Koppl C, Manley G: Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in the bobtail lizard. I. General characteristics. Hear Res 1993:71:157-169.
37. Manley G, Gallo L, Pavusa A, Koppl C: Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in three lizard species. Abstr Assoc Res Otolary ngol 1994: 17:53.
38. Koppl C: Otoacoustic emissions as an indicator for active cochlear mechanics: A primitive property of vertebrate auditory organs; in Manley G, Klurnp G, Koppl C, Fasti H. Oeckinghaus H (eds): Advances in Hearing Research. Proc 10th Int Symp Hearing. Singapore, World Scientific Publishing. 1995. pp 207-218.
39. Taschenberger G. Manley G: Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions from the bam owl. Abstr Assoc Res Otolaryngol 1994:17:52.