Overall considerations
All chicks examined in our laboratory 12 or 28 days after sound exposure exhibited the same tectorial membrane lesion seen in Figure 1 (Adler and Saunders 1995). This defect may well be a permanent injury in the sound-exposed chick ear.
When organized as isoresponse tuning curves, the spatial distribution of neural activity along the starling basilar papilla correlates with psychophysical tuning curves (Gleich 1994). Simpler procedures were used to construct the present isostimulus contours to evaluate spatial tuning in sound-damaged ears. Despite procedural differences, the spatial distribution of neural excitation exhibited common features between the starling and chick (e.g., increasing sharpness as criterion frequency increased, and more broadly tuned functions as intensity increased).
Our results revealed that control and exposed STC shape followed orderly changes with increasing criterion frequency and intensity. These changes are, in part, related to the traveling wave along the avian cochlear partition. Other authors have interpreted the pattern of spatially distributed auditory nerve activity in mammals as an indication of frequency resolution along the length of the organ of Corti (Pfeiffer and Kim 1975; Kim and Molnar 1979; Shofner and Sachs 1986; Kim et al. 1990). If the same interpretation applies to our data, then the patterns of activity reported here are indicative of frequency analysis along the cochlear partition of the chick ear. Nevertheless, the mechanisms of frequency analysis on the chick basilar papilla are less well understood than those in the mammalian cochlea, and this conclusion may be only partially true.
Is the STC a proxy for cochlear mechanics?
In mammals, auditory nerve frequency selectivity and basilar membrane sharpness of tuning are the same for a common CF (Narayan et al. 1998), implying that neural tuning results from the tuning of the basilar membrane. Moreover, the exquisite properties of frequency selectivity in mammals are attributed to energy applied to the basilar membrane from forces generated by outer hair cell motility (Robles and Ruggero 2001). This motility constitutes a cochlear amplifier that produces nonlinear basilar membrane movements and whose effects are seen in the sharpness of isoresponse tuning curves and in the expanding bandwidths of isostimulus frequency response curves with increasing stimulus intensity (see, e.g., Geisler et al. 1974; Pfeiffer and Kim 1975; Kim and Molnar 1979; Robles and Ruggero 2001). To this must be added the unique properties of the hair cell–auditory nerve synapse. Between 8 and 15 nerve afferent fibers originate from each inner hair cell, and postsynaptic morphology is correlated with neuron spontaneous activity and CF threshold level (Liberman 1982; Merchan–Perez and Liberman 1996). However, units with a similar CF, but differing in spontaneous activity and threshold level, have tuning curves with the same sharpness (e.g., see Rhode and Smith 1985). Thus, tuning curves with a common CF share a relatively common mechanical input.
Our understanding of basilar membrane motion, its relation to cochlear nerve tuning properties, and the origin of cochlear nonlinearities is relatively poor in the avian ear. Nevertheless, intriguing observations have been published, which lend insight into these processes (Köppl and Yates 1999; Yates et al 2000; Saunders et al. 2002).
Avian basilar membrane motion revealed a traveling wave that was broadly tuned (von Békésy 1960; Gummer et al. 1987; Richter 2001), exhibiting high- and low-frequency rolloffs comparable to those observed in our STCs. In addition, the growth of basilar membrane movement was directly proportional to sound intensity. The STCs in Figures 3 and 4 are consistent, in part, with these putative descriptions of the avian traveling wave, in that they appear to be broadly tuned with slightly greater selectivity on the high-frequency, compared with the low-frequency, side of the curve. In addition, frequency selectivity increased as criterion frequency increased. The present STCs showed clear evidence of nonlinear behavior in the increasing bandwidth with rising SPL and in spike rate compression at the highest SPLs (Figs. 6 and 7). However, for reasons yet to be identified, nonlinear basilar membrane behavior appeared to be absent in the avian papilla.
Threshold tuning curves in birds, across many units with a common CF, show a three- to fourfold variability in their degree of frequency selectivity from the dullest to sharpest curves (see Manley et al. 1985; Müller and Smolders 1999). For example, the values of Q10dB at 1.0 kHz range between 0.8 and 11.5 in chick (Manley et al. 1991; Saunders et al. 1996). In contrast, the range of Q10dB values in cat tuning curves at 1.0 kHz is approximately 1.3–3.4, about a twofold range of variability (Rhode and Smith 1985). The variability in chick frequency selectivity may not be surprising since afferent activity with a common CF arises from multiple hair cells lying along an isofrequency strip between the superior and inferior edges of the papilla. Depending on the orientation of the strip [it may be tilted with regard to the long axis of the papilla (Tilney et al. 1987)], as many as 30–45 hair cells may lie in the 0.95-kHz region, between these edges. Smolders et al. (1995) have shown that tuning curves from labeled neurons in pigeon, originating from hair cells in the inferior portion of the papilla, have high thresholds and broad tuning. Cochlear nerve fibers synapsing on more superior hair cells demonstrate CF thresholds with greater sensitive and frequency selective. Similar results have been reported from labeled cochlear nerve units in the starling (Gleich 1989). Since our sample of units had CF thresholds of 38 dB SPL or less, they most likely originated from hair cells in more superior papilla locations.
The question remains why it is that units with a common CF exhibit such variance in the frequency selectivity of their tuning curves. There are several possible reasons. The selectivity of mechanical input to the hair bundles might in fact vary across the isofrequency strip, being sharper for some hair bundles and less so for others. Alternatively, there might be a common input to hair bundles along this isofrequency strip, but it is superimposed on intrinsic hair cell tuning mechanisms that impart a unique degree of frequency selectivity. Finally, mechanical input and intrinsic hair cell mechanisms might interact in some unique manner. We consider these possibilities below.
The source of mechanical input to the hair cell hair bundles must originate with basilar membrane movement, and this motion, as noted above, may be broadly tuned and linear. A cochlear amplifier like that found in the mammalian cochlea has yet to be identified. In the absence of such an amplifier, it is reasonable to speculate that the mechanical input to chick hair bundles, for those hair cells having a common CF, is much the same, exhibiting the frequency selectivity of basilar membrane tuning. This assumption gains support in recent work demonstrating tip link loss on tall and short hair cells following overstimulation. The loss was similar in both hair cell types suggesting a common mode of hair bundle stimulation (Kurian et al. 2003). Basilar membrane tuning in the bird may be the best or only frequency-selective mechanical signal input to the hair bundle (von Békésy 1960; Gummer et al. 1987; Richter 2001).
Another factor influencing frequency selectivity is electrical tuning of the hair cell membrane. The frequency of electrical tuning in chick hair cells, at different papilla locations, has been reported (Fuchs et al. 1988). Temperature corrections (Schermuly and Klinke 1985), compensating for in vitro to in vivo conditions, yield a reasonable correspondence between papilla location, tonotopic organization, and the frequency to which the hair cell is electrically tuned (Fuchs et al. 1988). When the frequency of electrical tuning matches the frequency of hair bundle motion, then membrane depolarization and neurotransmitter release are greatest. At these conditions, the frequency selectivity seen in cochlear nerve tuning curves represents the combined effects of basilar membrane tuning and electrical tuning. Unfortunately, the sharpness of electrical tuning is unknown in the avian hair cell. Regardless, the effects of a global mechanical input, and a hair-cell-specific tuning mechanism, play an important role in avian frequency analysis. The contribution of each of these mechanisms to papilla frequency selectivity remains to be demonstrated.
It is unclear how compression in the STCs occurred as level increased. Although motility has yet to be found in chick hair cells (Dieler et al. 1994; He et al. 2001; Köppl et al. 2002), and nonlinear behavior may be absent in the basilar membrane response, evidence of nonlinearities in the avian peripheral ear abound. For example, chick tuning curves with a Q10dB as high as 11 were well beyond that predicted by basilar membrane tuning alone. The effect of nonlinearity also appears in the compressive behavior of avian cochlear nerve rate–intensity functions (Richter et al. 1995; Köppl and Yates 1999; Yates et al. 2000; Saunders et al. 2002). In addition, acoustically or electrically evoked DPOAEs have provided another signature of nonlinear behavior (see, e.g., Köppl 1995; Trautwein et al. 1996; Chen et al. 2001).
The nonlinearity that compressive behavior or distortion products imply must be introduced somewhere between basilar membrane motion and cochlear nerve activity. Moreover, these nonlinearities indicated the presence of a cochlear amplifier that most likely enhanced the sharpness of tuning in some cochlear nerve units. It has been proposed that a calcium-dependent motility in sensory hair bundles, at the site of the transduction channel, may be the source of the cochlear amplifier in anuran, reptilian, and avian hair cells (Eguiluz et al. 2000; Martin et al. 2000; Manley 2000; Manley et al. 2001; Hudspeth and Martin 2002). Other possible sources for compressive nonlinearity in the bird ear have recently been suggested (Saunders et al. 2002). These include the multiple neurotransmitter release sites associated with each tall hair cell afferent synapse (Martinez–Dunst et al. 1997), as well as the curved profile shape of the stereocilia staircase in tall hair cell hair bundles (Duncan et al. 2001).
The processes that determine the shape of the STC in mammals and birds are different. Frequency selectivity and compressive behavior in the responses of the mammalian auditory nerve arise primarily from outer hair cell motility and its influence on basilar membrane mechanics. In the chick ear, the basilar membrane response is broadly tuned, and sharp tuning as well as compressive behavior may be associated with electrical tuning and nonlinear behavior in individual hair cells (Hudspeth and Martin 2002; Manley 2000, 2001; Manley et al. 2001; Martin et al. 2000). The STCs reported here most likely arise from the interplay of global frequency selective processes in the basilar membrane response, interacting with frequency-selective processes occurring in individual hair cells.
The idea that avian cochlear nerve activity comes from a mixture of global (basilar membrane) and local (hair cell) processes has been proposed previously, based on cochlear nerve rate–intensity functions in the owl and emu (Köppl and Yates 1999; Yates et al. 2000). The absence of a common break point in the functions (an observation clearly different from mammals) suggested that local hair cell properties were contributing to the shape of the functions in birds. A similar conclusion was recently reported for chick rate–intensity functions (Saunders et al. 2002). The present data demonstrated the same idea, but now in the frequency domain.
STC shape in control and exposed units
The results of our study show subtle differences between control and exposed STCs. The local hair cell processes in the regenerated hair cells preserve frequency selectivity in the exposed STCs, implying recovery of electrical tuning. The only observation related to the lesion was the peak response (Figs. 6 and 7) which was reliably higher in the exposed group, between 0.78 and 1.17 kHz.
Figure 9A reveals that the low- or high-frequency slopes of the STCs were similar in exposed and control ears. However, when segregated by RI type at 0.95 kHz, a loss in frequency selectivity and peak response was evident for saturating and sloping-up types, respectively.