Effects of whole body vibration on outer hair cells’ hearing response to distortion product otoacoustic emissions

  • Seyyed-Ali Moussavi-Najarkola
  • Ali KhavaninEmail author
  • Ramazan Mirzaei
  • Mojdeh Salehnia
  • Mehdi Akbari


Whole body vibration (WBV) is one of the most vexing problems in industries. There is a debate about the effect of WBV exposure on hearing system as vibration-induced hearing loss. The purpose of this study was to investigate outer hair cells’ (OHCs’) hearing response hearing response to distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) in rabbits exposed to WBV. It was hypothesized that the DPOAE response amplitudes (A dp) in rabbits exposed to WBV would be lower than those in control rabbits not exposed to WBV. New Zealand white (NZW) rabbits as vibration group (n = 6, exposed to WBV in the z-axis at 4–8 Hz and 1.0 ms−2 root mean square for 8 h per day during five consecutive days) and NZW rabbits as control group (n = 6, not exposed to any WBV) were participated. A dp and noise floor levels (L nf) were examined on three occasions: day 0 (i.e., baseline), day 8 (i.e., immediately 1 h after exposure), and day 11 (i.e., 72 h following exposure) with f 2 frequencies ranging from 500 to 10,000 Hz and primaries L 1 and L 2 levels of 65 and 55 dB sound pressure level, respectively. Main effects were statistically found to be significant for group, time, and frequency (p < 0.05). DPOAE amplitudes were significantly larger for rabbits exposed to WBV, larger on day 8 and larger for mid to high f 2 frequencies (at and above 5,888.50 Hz). Main effects were not statistically found to be significant for ear (p > 0.05). Also, four statistically significant interactions including time by ear, time by frequency, group by frequency, and group by time were detected (p < 0.05). Contrary to the main hypothesis, DPOAE amplitudes were significantly larger for rabbits exposed to WBV. WBV exposure significantly led to enhanced mean A dp at mid to high frequencies rather than at low ones.


Whole body vibration Vibration-induced hearing loss Distortion product otoacoustic emissions Outer hair cell function Audiology 



We would like to thank Professor Richard D. Kopke from the Department of Defense Spatial Orientation Center, Department of Otolaryngology for helpful comments and discussion in the preliminary steps of starting this project. This study was supported by the Tarbiat Modares University.


  1. Anderson S. D.; Kemp D. T. The evoked cochlear mechanical response in laboratory primates. A preliminary report. Arch. Otolaryngol. 224: 47–54; 1979.Google Scholar
  2. Beranek L. L. Noise and vibration control. 1st ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 56–89; 1971.Google Scholar
  3. Bochnia M.; Morgenroth K.; Dziewiszek W.; Kassner J. Experimental vibratory damage of the inner ear. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 262: 307–313; 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown A. M. Acoustic distortion from rodent ears: a comparison of responses from rats, guinea pigs and gerbils. Hear. Res. 31: 25–38; 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budak B.; Budak G. G.; Öztürk G. G.; Muluk N. B.; Apan A.; Seyhan N. Effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields on distortion product otoacoustic emissions in rabbits. Auris Nasus Larynx 36: 255–262; 2009a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budak G. G.; Muluk N. B.; Budak B.; Öztürk G. G.; Apan A.; Seyhan N. Effects of GSM-like Radiofrequency on distortion product otoacoustic emissions of rabbits: comparison of infants versus adults. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 73: 1143–1147; 2009b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission Directorate General Employment. Guide to good practice on Whole-Body Vibration. Directive 2002/44/EC. VC/2004/0341. EU Good Practice Guide HAV. Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities; 2006.Google Scholar
  8. Griffin M. Handbook of human vibration. 1st ed. Elsevier, London, pp 103–109; 1990.Google Scholar
  9. Hamernik R. P.; Henderson D.; Coling D.; Salvi R. Influence of vibration on asymptotic threshold shift produced by impulse noise. Audiology 20: 259–269; 1981.Google Scholar
  10. Hamernik R. P.; Henderson D.; Coling D.; Slepecky N. The interaction of whole body vibration and impulse noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 67: 928–934; 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang Z. W.; Luo Y.; Wu Z.; Tao Z.; Jones R. O.; Zhao H. B. Paradoxical enhancement of active cochlear mechanics in long-term administration of salicylate. J. Neurophysiol. 93: 2053–2061; 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Mechanical vibration and shock—evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration—part 1. General requirements. ISO 2631-1, 2nd ed. 1997-05-01 Author, Geneva; 1997: 12–23 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Janssen T.; Müller J. Otoacoustic emissions as a diagnostic tool in a clinical context. In: Manley G. A.; Fay R. R.; Popper A. N. (eds) Active processes and otoacoustic emissions in hearing. Springer, New York, pp 421–460; 2008.Google Scholar
  14. Kakigi A.; Hirakawa H.; Harel N.; Mount R. J.; Harrison R. V. Basal cochlear lesions result in increased amplitude of otoacoustic emissions. Audiol. Neurootol. 3: 361–372; 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katbamna B.; Homnick D. N.; Marks J. H. Effects of chronic tobramycin treatment on distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear. 20: 393–402; 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaul D. K.; Hebbel R. P. Hypoxia/reoxygenation causes inflammatory responses in transgenic sickle mice but not in normal mice. J. Clin. Invest. 106: 411–420; 2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kemp D. T. Otoacoustic emissions, traveling waves and cochlear mechanisms. Hear. Res. 22: 95–104; 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kemp D. T. Otoacoustic emissions: concepts and origins. In: Manley G. A.; Fay R. R.; Popper A. N. (eds) Active processes and otoacoustic emissions in hearing. 1st ed. Springer, New York, pp 1–38; 2008.Google Scholar
  19. Lonsbury-Martin B. L.; Harris F. P.; Hawkins M. D.; Stagner B. B.; Martin G. K. Distortion product emissions in humans: I. Basic properties in normally hearing subjects. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 236: 3–13; 1990.Google Scholar
  20. Lonsbury-Martin B. L.; Martin G. K. Otoacoustic emissions: basic studies in mammalian models. In: Manley G. A.; Fay R. R.; Popper A. N. (eds) Active processes and otoacoustic emissions in hearing. 1st ed. Springer, New York, pp 261–304; 2008.Google Scholar
  21. Martin G. K.; Lonsbury-Martin B. L.; Kimm J. Auditory sensitivity in the rabbit determined by a conditional nictitating of membrane response. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 62: S88–S88; 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers (OHCOW). Whole-body vibration. OHCOW Inc., Ontario, pp 1–6; 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW). Public health service policy on humane care and use of laboratory animals (PHS Policy). National Institutes of Health. Department of Health and Human Services. RKL I, Suite 360, MSC 7982 6705. Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20892-7982; 2002.Google Scholar
  24. Okada A.; Miyaki H.; Yamamura K.; Minami M. Temporary hearing loss induced by noise and vibration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 51: 1240–1248; 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peng J. H.; Tao Z. Z.; Huang Z. W. Long-term sound conditioning increases distortion product otoacoustic emission amplitudes and decreases olivocochlear efferent reflex strength. Neuroreport 18: 1167–1170; 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pyykko I.; Pekkarinen J.; Stark J. Sensory-neural hearing loss during combined noise and vibration exposure: an analysis of risk factors. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 38: 439–454; 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raveh E.; Mount R. J.; Harrison R. V. Increased otoacoustic-emission amplitude secondary to cochlear lesions. J. Otolaryngol. 27: 354–360; 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sato H.; Sando I.; Takahashi H. Sexual dimorphism and development of the human cochlea: computer 3-D measurement. Acta Otolaryngol. 111: 1037–1040; 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Seidel H.; Harazin B.; Pavlas K.; Srokal C.; Richterl J.; Bliithnerl R.; Erdmannl U.; Grzesik J.; Hinz B.; Rothe R. Isolated and combined effects of prolonged exposures to noise and whole body vibration on hearing, vision and strain. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 61: 95–106; 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sininger Y.; Cone-Wesson B. Asymmetric cochlear processing mimics hemispheric specialization. Science 305: 1581; 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Soliman S.; El-Atreby M.; Tawfik S.; Holailc E.; Iskandarb N.; Abou-Setta A. The interaction of whole body vibration and noise on the cochlea. Int. Congr. Ser. 1240: 209–216; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Subramaniam M.; Henderson D.; Sponger V. The relationship among distortion product otoacoustic emissions evoked potential thresholds and outer hair cells following interrupted noise exposure. Ear Hear. 15(4): 299–309; 1994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Suzuki M.; Harris J. P. Expression of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 during inner ear inflammation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 104: 69–75; 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Teschke K.; Nicol A. M.; Davies H.; Ju S. Whole body vibration and back disorders among motor vehicle drivers and heavy equipment operators: a review of the scientific evidence. Appeal Commissioner Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia, Vancouver; 1999.Google Scholar
  35. Texas Department of Insurance (TDI). Whole body vibration. Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC), Safety Education and Training Programs, Resource Center offers a worker’ health and safety video tape library. HS97-106C (01–07).; 2011.
  36. Torvinen S. Effect of whole body vibration on muscular performance, balance, and bone. [Academic dissertation]. University of Tampere, Medical school, Department of surgery, UKK institute, Tampere, Finland; 2003.Google Scholar
  37. van den Brink G. Experiments in binaural diplacusis and tonal perception. In: Plomp R.; Smoorenburg G. F. (eds) Frequency analysis and periodicitiy detection in hearing. 1st ed. Sijthoff AW, Leiden, pp 362–374; 1970.Google Scholar
  38. Vassilakis P. N.; Meenderink S. W. F.; Narins P. M. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions provide clues to hearing mechanisms in the frog. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116: 3713–3726; 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whitehead M. L.; Lonsbury-Martin B. L.; Martin G. K. Evidence for two discrete sources of 2f 1f 2 distortion-product otoacoustic emission in rabbit: I. Differential dependence on stimulus parameters. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91: 1587–1607; 1992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang K.; Huang Z. W.; Liu Z. Q.; Xiao B. K.; Peng J. H. Long-term administration of salicylate enhances prestin expression in rat cochlea. Int. J. Audiol. 48: 18–23; 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yokoyama T.; Osako S.; Yamamoto K. Temporary threshold shifts produced by exposure to vibration, noise, and vibration-plus-noise. Acta Otolaryngol. 78: 207–212; 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yu N.; Zhu M. L.; Johnson B.; Liu Y. P.; Jones R. O.; Zhao H. B. Prestin up-regulation in chronic salicylate (aspirin) administration: an implication of functional dependence of prestin expression. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 65: 2407–2418; 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for In Vitro Biology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyyed-Ali Moussavi-Najarkola
    • 1
  • Ali Khavanin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ramazan Mirzaei
    • 2
  • Mojdeh Salehnia
    • 3
  • Mehdi Akbari
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Occupational Health, School of Medical SciencesTarbiat Modares University (TMU)TehranIran
  2. 2.Dept. of Occupational Health, Health Promotion Research CenterZahedan University of Medical Sciences (ZUMS)ZahedanIran
  3. 3.Dept. of Anatomical Sciences, School of Medical SciencesTarbiat Modares University (TMU)TehranIran
  4. 4.Dept. of Audiology, School of RehabilitationIran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS)TehranIran

Personalised recommendations