Advertisement

Is there a close relationship between changes in amplitudes of distortion product otoacoustic emissions and hair cell damage after exposure to realistic industrial noise in guinea pigs?

  • V. Linss
  • E. Emmerich
  • F. RichterEmail author
  • W. Linss
Otology

Abstract

In long-term experiments in awake guinea pigs (n=12), distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) at various frequencies were measured repeatedly over 6–8 months. About 9 weeks after the first measurement, the animals were exposed to industrial noise (car industry, maximal intensity about 110 dB SPL) for 2 h. The amplitudes of DPOAE were measured prior to noise exposure and 10 min, 70 min, 1 day and 2 days after the noise exposure and then once every week. Three to four months after noise exposure, the animals were killed, and the cochleae were prepared for scanning electron microscopy. The row of inner hair cells (IHCs) was complete in all animals, while the rows of outer hair cells (OHCs) showed a considerable hair cell loss in some of the animals without a correlation to the change in amplitudes of DPOAE. However, a closer relationship between the decline of amplitudes of DPOAE and the number of missing and changed OHCs (fused stereocilia bundles, missing tip links) could be established. The number of lost OHC does not reflect the decline in DPOAE in all cases. This discrepancy must be considered when the degree of hearing loss needs to be established from changed DPOAE.

Keywords

Long-term experiments Guinea pig Distortion product otoacoustic emission Hair cell loss Industrial noise 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mrs. G. Kruse for her assistance in DPOAE measurements and Mrs. U. Rother and Mrs. M. Theune for the preparation of the cochleae, Mrs. J.-M. Herrmann for the SEM operation and Mr. M. Szabó for the SEM image preparation. This work was supported by the Berufsgenossenschaft Nahrungsmittel und Gaststätten, Geschäftsbereich Prävention.

References

  1. 1.
    Avan P, Bonfils P, Loth D, Wit HP (1993) Temporal patterns of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in normal and impaired cochleae. Hear Res 70:109–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avan P, Bonfils P, Gilain L, Mom T (2003) Physiopathological significance of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions at 2f1-f2 produced by high- versus low-level stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 113:430–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonfils P, Uziel A, Pujol R (1987) Oto-acoustic emissions. I. Evoked oto-emissions: a new technique of functional study of the cochlea. Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac 104:353–360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown AM, McDowell B, Forge A (1989) Acoustic distortion products can be used to monitor the effects of chronic gentamicin treatment. Hear Res 42:143–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis B, Qiu W, Hamernik RP (2004) The use of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in the estimation of hearing and sensory cell loss in noise-damaged cochleas. Hear Res 187:12–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Decory L, Hiel H, Aran JM (1991) In vivo noise exposure alters the in vitro motility and viability of outer hair cells. Hear Res 52:81–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denk W, Holt JR, Shepherd GMG, Corey DP (1995) Calcium imaging of single stereocilia in hair cells: Localization of transduction channels at both ends of tip links. Neuron 15:1311–1321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emmerich E, Richter F, Reinhold U, Linss V, Linss W (2000a) Effects of industrial noise exposure on distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) and hair cell loss of the cochlea—long term experiments in awake guinea pigs. Hear Res 148:9–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emmerich E, Richter F, Meißner W, Dieroff H-G (2000b) The effect of impulse noise exposure on distortion product otoacoustic emissions in the awake guinea pig. Eur Arch Oto Rhino Laryngol 257:128–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frank G, Kossl M (1997) Acoustical and electrical biasing of the cochlea partition. Effects on the acoustic two tone distortions f2-f1 and 2f1-f2. Hear Res 113:57–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fredelius L, Wersäll J (1992) Hair cell damage after continuous and interrupted pure tone overstimulation: A scanning electron microscopic study in the guinea pig. Hear Res 62:194–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Géléoc GSG, Lennan GWT, Richardson GP, Kros CJ (1997) A quantitative comparison of mechanoelectrical transduction in vestibular and auditory hair cells of neonatal mice. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:611–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harel N, Kakigi A, Hirakawa H, Mount RJ, Harrison RV (1997) The effects of anesthesia on otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res 110:25–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henderson D, Spongr V, Subramaniam M, Campo P (1994) Anatomical effects of impact noise. Hear Res 76:101–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson AC, Canlon B (1994) Progressive hair cell loss induced by toluene exposure. Hear Res 75:201–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karlsson KK, Berninger E, Alvan G (1991) The effect of quinine on psychoacoustic tuning curves, stapedius reflexes and evoked otoacoustic emissions in healthy volunteers. Scand Audiol 20:83–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kemp DT (1978) Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 64:1386–1391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kemp DT (2002) Otoacoustic emissions, their origin in cochlear function, and use. Br Med Bull 63:223–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kemp DT, Chum R (1980) Properties of the generator of stimulated acoustic emissions. Hear Res 2:213–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kemp DT, Ryan S, Bray P (1990) A guide to the effective use of otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear 11:93–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kemp DT, Ryan S (1991) Otoacoustic emission tests in neonatal screening programmes. Acta Otolaryngol [Suppl] 482:73–84Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Linß W, Christner A (1996) Ist ein Impulslärmschaden progredient? Untersuchungen am Meerschweinchen. Pilsen Medical Report [Suppl] 70:17–20Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Linß W, Linß V, Emmerich E, Richter F (2000) Scanningelektronenmikroskopische Befunde zur Ausbildung der Hörhärchen in Helicotremanähe beim Meerschweinchen. Ann Anat 182:445–449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McFadden SL, Campo P, Quaranta N, Henderson D (1997) Age-related decline of auditory function in the chinchilla (chinchilla lauiger). Hear Res 111:114–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meyer C, Biedermann M, Christner A (1985) Early and late response of the guinea pig cochlea to impulse noise. Anat Anz 158:5–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meyer J, Furness DN, Zenner H-P, Hackney CM, Gummer AW (1998) Evidence for opening of hair-cell transducer channels after tip-link loss. J Neurosci 18:6748–6756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neely ST, Kim DO (1983) An active cochlear model showing sharp tuning and high sensitivity. Hear Res 9:123–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nouvian R, Ruel J, Wang J, Guitton MJ, Pujol R, Puel JL (2003) Degeneration of sensory outer hair cells following pharmacological blockade of cochlear KCNQ channels in the adult guinea pig. Eur J Neurosci 17:2553–2562PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Preyer S, Gummer AW (1996) Nonlinearity of mechanoelectrical transduction of outer hair cells as the source of nonlinear basilar-membrane motion and loudness recruitment. Audiol Neuro-Otol 1:3–11Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shehata WE, Brownell WE, Dieler R (1991) Effects of salicylate on shape, electromotility and membrane characteristics of isolated outer hair cells from guinea pig cochlea. Acta Otolaryngol 111:707–718PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Slepecky N (1986) Overview of mechanical damage to the inner ear: noise as a tool to probe cochlear function. Hear Res 22:307–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wagner W, Staud I, Frank G, Dammann F, Plontke S, Plinkert PK (2003) Noise in magnetic resonance imaging: no risk for sensorineural function but increased amplitude variability of otoacoustic emissions. Laryngoscope 113:1216–1223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang J, Van De Water TR, Bonny C, de Ribaupierre F, Puel JL, Zine A (2003a) A peptide inhibitor of c-Jun N-terminal kinase protects against both aminoglycoside and acoustic trauma-induced auditory hair cell death and hearing loss. J Neurosci 23:8596–8607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang J, Lloyd Faulconbridge RV, Fetoni A, Guitton MJ, Pujol R, Puel JL (2003b) Local application of sodium thiosulfate prevents cisplatin-induced hearing loss in the guinea pig. Neuropharmacology 45:380–393Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhou SL, Pickles JO (1994) Early hair-cell degeneration in the extreme apex of the guinea pig cochlea. Hear Res 79:147–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Anatomy IFriedrich Schiller University of JenaJenaGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Physiology IFriedrich Schiller University of JenaJenaGermany
  3. 3.ASMEC Advanced Surface Mechanics GmbHRadebergGermany

Personalised recommendations