Realistic Basilar Membrane Tuning Does Not Require Active Processes

  • Paul J. Kolston
  • Max A. Viergever
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA)


This paper describes two versions of a cochlear model (called the OHCAP model), both of which exhibit mechanical response tuning very similar to that recently measured in the real cochlea. Two assumptions made in the formulation of the model, that make it different from previous cochlear models, are that the basilar membrane has two radial modes of vibration (corresponding to division into its arcuate and pectinate zones), and that the outer hair cells (OHCs) greatly modify the mechanics of the arcuate zone. The two versions of the OHCAP model presented here have different models for the OHCs. Both versions exhibit very realistic tuning, and so it remains to be determined which is more acceptable in terms of physiological justifiability. However, both versions of the OHCAP model are passive, which shows that active processes are not necessary to explain the cochlea’s sharp tuning.


Outer Hair Cell Stimulus Frequency Basilar Membrane Phase Jump Cochlear Model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Diependaal, R.J., de Boer, E. and Viergever, M.A. (1987). Cochlear power flux as an indication of mechanical activity. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 82, 917–926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Iurato, S. (1962). Functional implications of the nature and submicroscopic structure of the tectorial and basilar membranes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 34, 1386–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Kolston, P.J. (1988a). Sharp mechanical tuning in a cochlear model without negative damping. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 83, 1481–1487.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kolston, P.J. (1988b). Micromechanics remove the need for active processes in cochlear tuning. In Basic Issues in Hearing, edited by H. Duifhuis, J.W. Horst and H.P. Wit (Academic Press, London).Google Scholar
  5. Kolston, P.J., Viergever, M.A., de Boer, E. and Diependaal, R.J. (1989). Realistic mechanical tuning in a micromechanical cochlear model. Submitted for publication in J. Acoust. Soc. Am.Google Scholar
  6. Miller, C.E. (1985). Structural implications of basilar membrane compliance measurements. J. Acoust. Soc Am., 77, 1465–1474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Neely, S.T. and Kim, D.O. (1986). A model for active elements in cochlear biomechanics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 79, 1472–1480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Robles, L., Ruggero, M.A. and Rich, N.C. (1986). Basilar membrane mechanics at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. I. Input-output functions, tuning curves, and response phases. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 80, 1364–1374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sellick, P.M., Patuzzi, R. and Johnstone, B.M. (1983). Comparison between the tuning properties of inner hair cells and basilar membrane motion. Hearing Research, 10, 93–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Viergever, M.A. (1986). Cochlear macromechanics — a review. In Peripheral Auditory Mechanisms, edited by J.B. Allen, J.L. Hall, A. Hubbard, S.T. Neely and A. Tubis. Springer, Munich, pp 63–72.Google Scholar
  11. Voldrich, L. (1983). Experimental and topographic morphology in cochlear mechanics. In Mechanics of Hearing, edited by E. de Boer and M.A. Viergever. Delft University Press, pp 163-168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul J. Kolston
    • 1
  • Max A. Viergever
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and InformaticsDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations