Relation Between Cochlear Mechanics and Performance of Temporal Fine Structure-Based Tasks

  • Sho Otsuka
  • Shigeto Furukawa
  • Shimpei Yamagishi
  • Koich Hirota
  • Makio Kashino
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

ABSTRACT

This study examined whether the mechanical characteristics of the cochlea could influence individual variation in the ability to use temporal fine structure (TFS) information. Cochlear mechanical functioning was evaluated by swept-tone evoked otoacoustic emissions (OAEs), which are thought to comprise linear reflection by micromechanical impedance perturbations, such as spatial variations in the number or geometry of outer hair cells, on the basilar membrane (BM). Low-rate (2 Hz) frequency modulation detection limens (FMDLs) were measured for carrier frequency of 1000 Hz and interaural phase difference (IPD) thresholds as indices of TFS sensitivity and high-rate (16 Hz) FMDLs and amplitude modulation detection limens (AMDLs) as indices of sensitivity to non-TFS cues. Significant correlations were found among low-rate FMDLs, low-rate AMDLs, and IPD thresholds (R = 0.47–0.59). A principal component analysis was used to show a common factor that could account for 81.1, 74.1, and 62.9 % of the variance in low-rate FMDLs, low-rate AMDLs, and IPD thresholds, respectively. An OAE feature, specifically a characteristic dip around 2–2.5 kHz in OAE spectra, showed a significant correlation with the common factor (R = 0.54). High-rate FMDLs and AMDLs were correlated with each other (R = 0.56) but not with the other measures. The results can be interpreted as indicating that (1) the low-rate AMDLs, as well as the IPD thresholds and low-rate FMDLs, depend on the use of TFS information coded in neural phase locking and (2) the use of TFS information is influenced by a particular aspect of cochlear mechanics, such as mechanical irregularity along the BM.

KEYWORDS

temporal fine structure frequency modulation detection interaural time difference amplitude modulation detection otoacoustic emission principal component analysis multiple regression analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are very grateful to Brian C. J. Moore for his helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and Christian Lorenzi for helpful and stimulating discussions. We thank Julie Arenberg Bierer, the associate editor, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS

Conflict of Interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. Anderson DJ, Rose JE, Hind JE, Brugge JF (1971) Temporal position of discharges in single auditory nerve fibers within the cycle of a sine-wave stimulus: Frequency and intensity effects. J Acoust Soc Am 49:113–11139Google Scholar
  2. Bharadwaj HM, Masud S, Mehraei G, et al (2015) Individual Differences Reveal Correlates of Hidden Hearing Deficits. J Neurosci 35:2161–2172Google Scholar
  3. Bennett CL, Ozdamar O (2010) Swept-tone transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 128:1833–1844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss E, Hall JW 3rd, Grose JH (2004) Temporal fine-structure cues to speech and pure tone modulation in observers with sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 25:242–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlyon RP, Long CJ, Micheyl C (2012) Across-channel timing differences as a potential code for the frequency of pure tones. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13:159–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Carney LH (1994) Spatio-temporal encoding of sound level: models for normal encoding and recruitment of loudness. Hear Res 76:31–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carney LH, Heinz MG, Evilsizer ME, Gilkey RH, Colburn HS (2002) Auditory phase opponency: a temporal model for masked detection at low frequencies. Acta Acust- Acust 88:334–346Google Scholar
  8. Choi Y-S, Lee S-Y, Parham K, et al. (2008) Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission: measurements in humans and simulations with an active cochlear model. J Acoust Soc Am 123:2651–2669CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Colburn HS, Carney LH, Heinz MG (2003) Quantifying the information in auditory-nerve responses for level discrimination. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 4:294–311Google Scholar
  10. Cook RD (1977) Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics 19:15–18Google Scholar
  11. Elliott SJ, Ku EM, Lineton B (2007) A state space model for cochlear mechanics. J Acoust Soc Am 122:2759–2771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Epp B, Verhey JL, Mauermann M (2010) Modeling cochlear dynamics: interrelation between cochlea mechanics and psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 128:1870–1883CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Ernst SMA, Moore BCJ (2010) Mechanisms underlying the detection of frequency modulation. J Acoust Soc Am 128:3642–3648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Feeney MP, Grant IL, Marryott LP (2003) Wideband energy reflectance measurements in adults with middle-ear disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res 46:901–911CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilbert G, Lorenzi C (2006) The ability of listeners to use recovered envelope cues from speech fine structure. J Acoust Soc Am 119:2438–2444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Grose JH, Mamo SK (2010) Processing of temporal fine structure as a function of age. Ear Hear 31:755–760CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Grose JH, Mamo SK (2012) Frequency modulation detection as a measure of temporal processing: age-related monaural and binaural effects. Hear Res 294:49–54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinz MG, Colburn HS, Carney LH (2001) Rate and timing cues associated with the cochlear amplifier: level discrimination based on monaural cross-frequency coincidence detection. J Acoust Soc Am 110:2065–2084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Heise SJ, Mauermann M, Verhey JL (2009) Threshold fine structure affects amplitude modulation perception. J Acoust Soc Am 125:EL33–EL38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Henning GB (1983) Lateralization of transient signals and types of delay. In: Klinke DR, Hartmann DR (eds) Hear. — Physiol. Bases Psychophys. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 196–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hilger AW, Furness DN, Wilson JP (1995) The possible relationship between transient evoked otoacoustic emissions and organ of Corti irregularities in the guinea pig. Hear Res 84:1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hopkins K, Moore BCJ (2011) The effects of age and cochlear hearing loss on temporal fine structure sensitivity, frequency selectivity, and speech reception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 130:334–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Joris PX, Schreiner CE, Rees A (2004) Neural Processing of Amplitude-Modulated Sounds. Physiol Rev 84:541–577Google Scholar
  24. Kalluri R, Shera CA (2013) Measuring stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions using swept tones. J Acoust Soc Am 134:356–368Google Scholar
  25. Keefe DH (1998) Double-evoked otoacoustic emissions. I Measurement theory and nonlinear coherence. J Acoust Soc Am 103:3489–3498Google Scholar
  26. Keefe DH, Ling R, Bulen JC (1992) Method to measure acoustic impedance and reflection coefficient. J Acoust Soc Am 91:470–485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kemp DT (1978) Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 64:1386–1391Google Scholar
  28. Kohlrausch A, Fassel R, Dau T (2000) The influence of carrier level and frequency on modulation and beat-detection thresholds for sinusoidal carriers. J Acoust Soc Am 108:723–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kujawa SG, Liberman MC (2009) Adding insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after “Temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 29:14077–14085Google Scholar
  30. Ku EM, Elliott SJ, Lineton B (2009) Limit cycle oscillations in a nonlinear state space model of the human cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 126:739–750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lachenbruch PA, Mickey MR (1968) Estimation of error rates in discriminant analysis. Technometrics 10:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levitt H (1971) Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49:467–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lineton B, Lutman ME (2003) Modeling the effect of suppression on the periodicity of stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 114:859–870CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Loeb GE, White MW, Merzenich MM (1983) Spatial cross-correlation. Biol Cybern 47:149–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lopez-Poveda EA, Barrios P (2013) Perception of stochastically undersampled sound waveforms: a model of auditory deafferentation. Front Neurosci 7:124Google Scholar
  36. Maison SF, Usubuchi H, Liberman MC (2013) Efferent feedback minimizes cochlear neuropathy from moderate noise exposure. J Neurosci 33:5542–5552Google Scholar
  37. Moore BCJ, Sek A (1995) Effects of carrier frequency, modulation rate, and modulation waveform on the detection of modulation and the discrimination of modulation type (amplitude modulation versus frequency modulation). J Acoust Soc Am 97:2468–2478Google Scholar
  38. Moore BCJ, Sek A (1996) Detection of frequency modulation at low modulation rates: evidence for a mechanism based on phase locking. J Acoust Soc Am 100:2320–2331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Moore BCJ, Vickers DA, Mehta A (2012) The effects of age on temporal fine structure sensitivity in monaural and binaural conditions. Int J Audiol 51:715–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Morise M, Irino T, Banno H (2007) Warped-TSP: An acoustic measurement signal robust to background noise and harmonic distortion. Electron Comm Jpn Pt III 90:18–26Google Scholar
  41. Neely ST, Kim DO (1986) A model for active elements in cochlear biomechanics. J Acoust Soc Am 79:1472–1480CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Otsuka S, Furukawa S, Yamagishi S, et al. (2014) Interindividual variation of sensitivity to frequency modulation: its relation with click-evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15:175–186CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Oxenham AJ, Shera CA (2003) Estimates of human cochlear tuning at low levels using forward and Simultaneous Masking. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 4:541–554Google Scholar
  44. Ruggero MA, Rich NC, Recio A, et al (1997) Basilar-membrane responses to tones at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 101:2151–2163Google Scholar
  45. Sek A, Moore BCJ (1995) Frequency discrimination as a function of frequency, measured in several ways. J Acoust Soc Am 97:2479–2486.Google Scholar
  46. Schairer KS, Fitzpatrick D, Keefe DH (2003) Input-output functions for stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing adult ears. J Acoust Soc Am 114:944–966CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Shamma SA (1989) Stereausis: binaural processing without neural delays. J Acoust Soc Am 86:989–1006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Siegel JH, Hirohata ET (1994) Sound calibration and distortion product otoacoustic emissions at high frequencies. Hear Res 80:146–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sisto R, Moleti A (2005) On the large-scale spectral structure of otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 117:1234–1240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Strelcyk O, Dau T (2009) Relations between frequency selectivity, temporal fine-structure processing, and speech reception in impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 125:3328–3345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Tognola G, Grandori F, Ravazzani P (1997) Time-frequency distributions of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res 106:112–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Verhulst S, Dau T, Shera CA (2012) Nonlinear time-domain cochlear model for transient stimulation and human otoacoustic emission. J Acoust Soc Am 132:3842–3848CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Wit HP, van Dijk P, Avan P (1994) Wavelet analysis of real ear and synthesized click evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res 73:141–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Wright A (1984) Dimensions of the cochlear stereocilia in man and the guinea pig. Hear Res 13:89–98Google Scholar
  55. Zweig G, Shera CA (1995) The origin of periodicity in the spectrum of evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 98:2018–2047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sho Otsuka
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shigeto Furukawa
    • 2
  • Shimpei Yamagishi
    • 3
  • Koich Hirota
    • 4
  • Makio Kashino
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Human and Engineered Environmental Studies, Graduate School of Frontier SciencesThe University of TokyoKashiwaJapan
  2. 2.NTT Communication Science Laboratories, NTT CorporationAtsugiJapan
  3. 3.Department of Information Processing, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science and EngineeringTokyo Institute of TechnologyYokohamaJapan
  4. 4.Interfaculty Initiative in Information Studies/Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information StudiesThe University of TokyoKashiwaJapan

Personalised recommendations