On the Controversy About the Sharpness of Human Cochlear Tuning

  • Enrique A. Lopez-PovedaEmail author
  • Almudena Eustaquio-Martin
Research Article


In signal processing terms, the operation of the mammalian cochlea in the inner ear may be likened to a bank of filters. Based on otoacoustic emission evidence, it has been recently claimed that cochlear tuning is sharper for human than for other mammals. The claim was corroborated with a behavioral method that involves the masking of pure tones with forward notched noises (NN). Using this method, it has been further claimed that human cochlear tuning is sharper than suggested by earlier behavioral studies. These claims are controversial. Here, we contribute to the controversy by theoretically assessing the accuracy of the NN method at inferring the bandwidth (BW) of nonlinear cochlear filters. Behavioral forward masking was mimicked using a computer model of the squared basilar membrane response followed by a temporal integrator. Isoresponse and isolevel versions of the forward masking NN method were applied to infer the already known BW of the cochlear filter used in the model. We show that isolevel methods were overall more accurate than isoresponse methods. We also show that BWs for NNs and sinusoids equate only for isolevel methods and when the levels of the two stimuli are appropriately scaled. Lastly, we show that the inferred BW depends on the method version (isolevel BW was twice as broad as isoresponse BW at 40 dB SPL) and on the stimulus level (isoresponse and isolevel BW decreased and increased, respectively, with increasing level over the level range where cochlear responses went from linear to compressive). We suggest that the latter may contribute to explaining the reported differences in cochlear tuning across behavioral studies and species. We further suggest that given the well-established nonlinear nature of cochlear responses, even greater care must be exercised when using a single BW value to describe and compare cochlear tuning.


frequency selectivity cochlear nonlinearity forward masking notched noise auditory model 



We thank Andrew J. Oxenham for providing us with his Matlab implementation of the power spectrum model of masking and Ray Meddis for helpful discussions. We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers and the editors for their suggestions on earlier versions of this work. This work was supported by the Spanish MINECO (grant BFU2009-07909).


  1. Baker RJ, Rosen S (2006) Auditory filter nonlinearity across frequency using simultaneous notched-noise masking. J Acoust Soc Am 119:454–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker RJ, Rosen S, Darling A (1998) An efficient characterisation of human auditory filtering across level and frequency that is also physiologically reasonable. In: Palmer AR, Rees A, Summerfield Q, Meddis R (eds) Psychophysical and physiological advances in hearing. Whurr, London, pp 81–88Google Scholar
  3. Brown GJ, Ferry RT, Meddis R (2010) A computer model of auditory efferent suppression: implications for the recognition of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 127:943–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Boer E, Nuttall AL (2002) The mechanical waveform of the basilar membrane. IV. Tone and noise stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 111:979–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Epstein M, Florentine M (2005) Inferring basilar-membrane motion from tone-burst otoacoustic emissions and psychoacoustic measurements. J Acoust Soc Am 117:263–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eustaquio-Martin A, Lopez-Poveda EA (2011) Isoresponse versus isoinput estimates of cochlear filter tuning. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 12:281–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evans EF (2001) Latest comparison between physiological and behavioral frequency selectivity. In: Houtsma AJM, Kohlraush A, Prijs VF, Schoonhoven R, Breebaart J (eds) Physiological and psychophysical bases of auditory function. Shaker, Maastricht, pp 382–387Google Scholar
  8. Fletcher H (1940) Auditory patterns. Rev Mod Phys 12:47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geisler CD, Rhode WS, Kennedy DT (1974) Responses to tonal stimuli of single auditory nerve fibers and their relationship to basilar membrane motion in the squirrel monkey. J Neurophysiol 37:1156–1172Google Scholar
  10. Glasberg BR, Moore BCJ (2000) Frequency selectivity as a function of level and frequency measured with uniformly exciting notched noise. J Acoust Soc Am 108:2318–2328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heinz MG, Colburn HS, Carney LH (2002) Quantifying the implications of nonlinear cochlear tuning for auditory-filter estimates. J Acoust Soc Am 111:996–1011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johannesen PT, Lopez-Poveda EA (2008) Cochlear nonlinearity in normal-hearing subjects as inferred psychophysically and from distortion-product otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 124:2149–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Joris PX, Bergevin C, Kalluri R, Mc LM, Michelet P, Vander HM, Shera CA (2011) Frequency selectivity in Old-World monkeys corroborates sharp cochlear tuning in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:17516–17520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kidd GJ, Feth LL (1981) Patterns of residual masking. Hear Res 5:49–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lopez-Najera A, Lopez-Poveda EA, Meddis R (2007) Further studies on the dual-resonance nonlinear filter model of cochlear frequency selectivity: responses to tones. J Acoust Soc Am 122:2124–2134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lopez-Poveda EA (2003) An aproximate transfer function for the dual-resonance nonlinear filter model of auditory frequency selectivity. J Acoust Soc Am 114:2112–2117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lopez-Poveda EA, Barrios LF, Alves-Pinto A (2007) Psychophysical estimates of level-dependent best-frequency shifts in the apical region of the human basilar membrane. J Acoust Soc Am 121:3646–3654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lopez-Poveda EA, Johannesen PT (2012) Behavioral estimates of the contribution of inner and outer hair cell dysfunction to individualized audiometric loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13:485–504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lopez-Poveda EA, Plack CJ, Meddis R (2003) Cochlear nonlinearity between 500 and 8000 Hz in listeners with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 113:951–960PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meddis R, O'Mard L, Lopez-Poveda EA (2001) A computational algorithm for computing nonlinear auditory frequency selectivity. J Acoust Soc Am 109:2852–2861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR (2004) A revised model of loudness perception applied to cochlear hearing loss. Hear Res 188:70–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moore BCJ, Sek A (2011) Effect of level on the discrimination of harmonic and frequency-shifted complex tones at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 129:3206–3212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore BCJ (2007) Cochlear hearing loss. Wiley, Chichester, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moore BCJ (2012) An introduction to the psychology of hearing. Emerald, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR (2003) Behavioural measurement of level-dependent shifts in the vibration patter on the basilar membrane at 1 and 2 kHz. Hear Res 175:66–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson DA, Schroder AC (2004) Peripheral compression as a function of stimulus level and frequency region in normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 115:2221–2233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oxenham AJ (2001) Forward masking: adaptation or integration? J Acoust Soc Am 109:732–741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oxenham AJ, Shera CA (2003) Estimates of human cochlear tuning at low levels using forward and simultaneous masking. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 4:541–554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oxenham AJ, Simonson AM (2006) Level dependence of auditory filters in nonsimultaneous masking as a function of frequency. J Acoust Soc Am 119:444–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Painter T, Spanias A (2000) Perceptual coding of digital audio. Proc IEEE 88:451–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Patterson RD (1976) Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 59:640–654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Patterson RD, Nimmo-Smith I (1980) Off-frequency listening and auditory-filter asymmetry. J Acoust Soc Am 67:229–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Plack CJ, Oxenham AJ (2000) Basilar-membrane nonlinearity estimated by pulsation threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 107:501–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Plack CJ, Oxenham AJ, Drga V (2002) Linear and nonlinear processes in temporal masking. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 88:348–358Google Scholar
  35. Rhode WS, Cooper NP (1996) Nonlinear mechanics in the apical turn of the chinchilla cochlea in vivo. Aud Neurosci 3:101–121Google Scholar
  36. Robles L, Ruggero MA (2001) Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Physiol Rev 81:1305–1352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosen S, Baker RJ (1994) Characterising auditory filter nonlinearity. Hear Res 73:231–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosen S, Baker RJ, Darling A (1998) Auditory filter nonlinearity at 2 kHz in normal hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 103:2539–2550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruggero MA, Rich NC, Recio A, Narayan SS, Robles L (1997) Basilar-membrane responses to tones at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 101:2151–2163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruggero MA, Temchin AN (2005) Unexceptional sharpness of frequency tuning in the human cochlea. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:18614–18619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shera CA, Guinan JJ, Oxenham AJ (2002) Revised estimates of human cochlear tuning from otoacoustic and behavioral measurements. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:3318–3323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shera CA, Guinan JJ Jr, Oxenham AJ (2010) Otoacoustic estimation of cochlear tuning: validation in the chinchilla. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 11:343–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stone MA, Glasberg BR, Moore BC (1992) Simplified measurement of auditory filter shapes using the notched-noise method. Br J Audiol 26:329–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sumner CJ, Lopez-Poveda EA, O'Mard LP, Meddis R (2002) A revised model of the inner-hair cell and auditory-nerve complex. J Acoust Soc Am 111:2178–2188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Temchin AN, Rich NC, Ruggero MA (2008) Threshold tuning curves of chinchilla auditory nerve fibers. II. Dependence on spontaneous activity and relation to cochlear nonlinearity. J Neurophysiol 100:2899–2906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verschuure J (1980) Pulsation patterns and nonlinear auditory tuning. Hear Res 2:397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verschuure J (1981) Pulsation patterns and nonlinearity of auditory tuning: I. Psychophysical results. Acta Acustica united with Acustica 49:288–295Google Scholar
  48. Vogten LL (1974) Pure-tone masking: a new result from a new method. In: Zwicker E, Terhardt E (eds) Facts and models in hearing. Springer, Berlin, pp 142–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vogten LL (1978) Simultaneous pure-tone masking: the dependence of masking asymmetries on intensity. J Acoust Soc Am 63:1509–1519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson BS, Schatzer R, Lopez-Poveda EA, Sun X, Lawson DT, Wolford RD (2005) Two new directions in speech processor design for cochlear implants. Ear Hear 26:73S–81SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yasin I, Plack CJ (2005) Psychophysical tuning curves at very high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 118:2498–2506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang X, Heinz MG, Bruce IC, Carney LH (2001) A phenomenological model for the responses of auditory-nerve fibers: I. Nonlinear tuning with compression and suppression. J Acoust Soc Am 109:648–670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrique A. Lopez-Poveda
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Almudena Eustaquio-Martin
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto de Neurociencias de Castilla y LeónUniversidad de SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  2. 2.Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de SalamancaUniversidad de SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  3. 3.Departamento de Cirugía, Facultad de MedicinaUniversidad de SalamancaSalamancaSpain

Personalised recommendations