The effect of perilymphatic tetrodotoxin on peripheral auditory system function

Seminars in Hearing

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 3-12

  Arts, H Alexander ^a,c   Norton, Susan J ^b   Rubel, Edwin W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Hair cell; Otoacoustic emissions; Tetrodotoxin

Indexed keywords

TETRODOTOXIN;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; COCHLEA FENESTRA; COCHLEAR NERVE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISTORTION PRODUCT OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION; GERBIL; NERVE POTENTIAL; NEUROMODULATION; NONHUMAN;

EID: 0032891144     PISSN: 07340451     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1089908     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ashmore, J.F. (1987). A fast motile response in guinea-pig outer hair cells: The cellular basis of the cochlear amplifier. J. Physiol, 388, 323-347.
2. Born, D., & Rubel, E. (1988). Afferent influences on brain stem auditory nuclei of the chicken: Presynaptic action potentials regulate protein synthesis in nucleus magnocellularis neurons. J. Neuroscience, 8, 901-919.
3. Brown, M. (1987). Morphology of labeled afferent fibers in the guinea pig cochlea. J. Comp. Neurol, 260, 591-604.
4. Brownell, W., Bader, C., Bertrand, D., & Ribaupierre, Y.d. (1985). Evoked mechanical responses of isolated cochlear outer hair cells. Science, 227, 194-196.
5. Burkhard, R. (1984). Sound pressure level measurement and spectral analysis of brief acoustic transients. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 57, 83-91.
6. Crawford, A., & Fettiplace, R. (1985). The mechanical properties of ciliary bundles of turtle cochlear hair cells. J. Physiol, 312, 359-379.
7. Engström, H., & Engström, B. (1978). Structure of hairs on cochlear sensory cells. Hearing Res, 1, 49-66.
8. Gold, T., & Hearing, I. (1948). The physical basis of action of the cochlea. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B, 135, 492-498.
9. Guinan, J. (1986). Effect of efferent neural activity on cochlear mechanics. Scand. Audiol. Suppl, 25, 53-62.
10. Horner, K.C., Lenoir, M., & Bock, G.R. (1985). Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in hearing-impaired mutant mice. J. Acoustical Soc. Am, 78, 1603-1611.
11. Kachar, B., Brownell, W., Altschuler, R., & Fex, J. (1986). Electrokinetic changes of cochlear outer hair cells. Nature, 322, 365-368.
12. Kemp, D.T. (1978). Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am, 64, 1386-1391.
13. Kemp, D.T. (1979). Evidence of mechanical non-linearity and frequency selective wave amplification in the cochlea. Arch. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol, 224, 37-45.
14. Kemp, D.T., & Chum, R. (1980). Observations on the generator mechanism of stimulus frequency acoustic emissions - two tone suppression. In G. Brink and F. Bilsen. (Eds.), Psychophysical, physiological, and behavioural studies in hearing. 34-41. Delft: Delft University Press.
15. Kim, D., Neely, S., Molnar, C., & Matthews, J. (1980). An active cochlear model with negative damping in the partition: Comparison with Rhode's ante- and post-mortem observations. In G. Brionk and F. Bilsen. (Eds.), Psychophysical, physiological, and behavioural studies in hearing. 7-14. Delft: Delft University Press.
16. Langer, R., Brown, L., & Edelman, E. (1985). Controlled release and magnetically modulated release systems for macromolecules. Methods Enzymol, 142, 399-422.
17. LeCalvez, S., Avan, P., Gilain, L., & Romand, R. (1998). CD1 hearing-impaired mice. I. Distortion product otoacoustic emission levels, cochlear function and morphology. Hear. Res, 120, 37-50.
18. Lonsbury-Martin, B., & Martin, G. (1990). The clinical utility of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear, 11, 144-154.
19. Martin, G., Ohlms, L., Franklin, D., Harris, F., & Lonsbury-Martin, B. (1990). Distortion-product emissions in humans: III. Influence of sensorineural hearing loss. Ann. Otolaryngol, 236(Suppl), 29-41.
20. Martinsen, A., Skjåk-Br k, G., & Smidsrød, O. (1988). Alginate as immobilization material 1: Correlation between chemical and physical properties of alginate gel beads. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 32, 1-11.
21. Mott, J.B., Norton, S.J., Neely, S.T., Warr, W.B. (1989). Changes in spontaneous otoacoustic emissions produced by acoustic stimulation of the contralateral ear. Hearing Research, 38, 229-242.
22. Mountain, D.C. (1980). Change in endolymphatic potential and crossed olivocochlear bundle stimulation alter cochlear mechanics. Science, 210, 71-72.
23. Pasic, T.R., & Rubel, E.W. (1989). Rapid changes in cocblear nucleus cell size following blockade of auditory nerve electrical activity in gerbils. J. Comp. Neurol, 283, 474-480.
24. Rhode, W. (1973). An investigation of post-mortem cochlear mechanics using the Mossbauer effect. In A. Møller. (Ed.), Basic mechanisms of hearing. New York: Academic Press.
25. Robles, L., Rhode, W., & Geisler, C. (1970). Transient response of the basilar membrane measured in squirrel monkeys using the Mössbauer effect. J. Acoust. Soc. Am, 59, 926-939.
26. Rubel, EW, & Norton, S. (1990). Comparison of acoustic and neural responses from avian ears following gentamicin. Abstracts of the 13th Midwinter Research Meeting, Association for Research in Otolaryngology, St. Petersburg, FL, Feb. 1990.
27. Rubel, EW, & Norton, S. (1991). Vulnerability of otoacoustic emissions as a function of stimulus level. Abstracts of the 14th Midwinter Research Meeting, Association for Research in Otolaryngology, St. Petersburg, FL, Feb., 1991.
28. Schrott, A., Puel, J.L., & Rebillard, G. (1991). Cochlear origin of 2f1-f2 distortion products assessed by using 2 types of mutant mice. Hear. Res, 52, 245-253.
29. Siegel, J., & Kim, D. (1982). Efferent neural control of cochlear mechanics? Olivocochlear bundle stimulation affects cochlear biomechanical noulinearity. Hearing Res, 6, 171 -182.
30. Skjåk-Br k. G., Grasdalen, H., & Smidsrød, O. (1989). Inhomogeneous polysaccharide ionic gels. Carbohydrate Polymers, 10, 1-24.
31. Smoorenburg, G.F. (1970). Pitch perception of two frequency stimuli. J. Acoustical Soc. Am, 48, 924-942.
32. Smoorenburg, G.F., Gibson, M.M., Kitzes, L.M., Rose, J.E., & Hind, J.E. (1976). Correlates of combination tones observed in the respouse of neurons in the anteroventral cochlear nucleus of the cat. J. Acoustical Soc. Am, 54, 945-962.
33. Spoendlin, H. (1972). Innervation densities of the cochlea. Acta. Otolaryngol, 73, 235-248.
34. Spoendlin, H. (1978). The afferent innervation of the cochlea. In R. Naunton & C. Fernandez (Eds.), Evoked electrical activity in the auditory system. 21-39. London: Academic Press.
35. Zenner, H.P. (1986). Motile responses in outer hair cells. Hearing Res, 22, 83-90.
36. Zenner, H.P., Zimmermann, R., & Gitter, A.H. (1988). Active movements of the cuticular plate induce sensory hair motion in mammalian outer hair cells. Hearing Res, 34, 233-210.
37. Zenner, H.P., Zimmermann, U., & Schmitt, U. (1985). Reversible contraction of isolated mammalian cochlear hair cells. Hearing Res, 18, 127-133.