Individual cochlear delay estimated with otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem measurements

Authors

  • Gilles Pigasse Centre for Applied Hearing Research, Ørsted•DTU, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
  • James M. Harte Centre for Applied Hearing Research, Ørsted•DTU, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
  • Torsten Dau Centre for Applied Hearing Research, Ørsted•DTU, Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark

Abstract

Methods to estimate cochlear delay in humans have been traditionally based on either phase-derived group delays from otoacoustic emissions (OAE) or derived-band auditory brainstem responses (ABR). There has been a large variability in these cochlear delay estimates, when averaged across a number of subjects. This study aims to assess the degree of inter-subject variability, by focusing on the methods for deriving both OAE and ABR based estimates. The robustness of the measures will be demonstrated via repeat recordings and the associated intra-subject variability. Tone-burst evoked OAEs (TBOAEs) and tone-burst evoked ABRs (TBA- BRs) are used to estimate cochlear delay. The ambiguity in time domain OAE onset, for these narrowband stimuli, is analysed by taking advantage of their compressive growth function. This is done by separating the nonlinear components of cochlear origin from the linear reflection in the time domain. The observed latencies as a function of frequency are qualitatively similar across subjects. For the individual subjects, the delay at each tone-burst frequency is reproducible. However, there remains an ambiguity regarding the true onset point of the OAE. For the TBABR data, one limiting factor appears to be the fixed choice of the neural delay. Attempts are made to understand this in the individuals tested. The difference in inter-subject variability between TBOAE and TBABR is apparent at low frequencies. The assumption that OAE delay is twice the basilar membrane delay, as implied by the theory of coherent reflection (Zweig and Shera, 1995), does not appear to hold for the entire frequency range. Theoretical implications of these ndings on the transmission of the travelling wave are discussed.

References

Zweig, G., and Shera, C. (1995). “The origin of periodicity in the spectrum of evoked otoacoustic emissions,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 98, 2018-2047.

Ulehlová, L., Voldrich, L., and Janisch, R. (1987). ”Correlative study of sensory cell density and cochlear length in humans,” Hear Res, 28, 149-151.

Pigasse, G., Harte, J. M., and Dau, T. (2006). “Individual cochlear delays measured with tone-burst-evoked otoacoustic emissions,” XXVIIIth International Congress of Audiology, Innsbruck 3-7 September 2006.

Don, M., Ponton, C. W., Eggermont, J. J., and Masuda, A. (1993). “Gender differences in cochlear response time: an explanation for gender amplitude differences in the unmasked auditory brain-stem response,” J Acoust Soc Am, 94, 2135-2148.

Norton, S., and Neely, S. (1987). “Tone-burst-evoked otoacoustic emissions from normal-hearing subjects,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 81, 1860-72.

Greenwood, D. (1990). “A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 87, 2592-2605.

Kim, D. O., and Molnar, C. E. (1979). ”A population study of cochlear nerve bers: comparison of spatial distributions of average-rate and phase-locking measures of responses to single tones,”J Neurophysiol, 42, 16-30.

Don, M., and Eggermont, J. J. (1978). “Analysis of the click-evoked brainstem potentials in man using high-pass noise masking,”J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 63, 1084-1092.

Neely, S., Norton, S., Gorga, M., and Jesteadt, W. (1988). “Latency of auditory brainstem responses and otoacoustic emissions using tone-burst stimuli,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,83, 652-6.

Don, M., Ponton, C. W., Eggermont, J. J., and Masuda, A.(1994). ”Auditory brainstem response (ABR) peak amplitude variability re ects individual differences in cochlear response time,” J Acoust Soc Am, 96, 3476-3491.

von Békésy, G. (1960). ”Experiments in Hearing,” McGraw Hill, New York

Siegel, J. H., Cerka, A. J., Recio-Spinoso, A., Temchin, A. N., Van Dijk, P., and Ruggero, M. A. (2005). “Delays of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions and cochlear vibrations contradict the theory of coherent re ection ltering,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 118, 2434-2443.

Narayan, S. S. (1991). “Comparison of latencies of N1 and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions: An evaluation of reverse travel in the cochlea,” Purdue University.

Robles, L., and Ruggero, M. A. (2001). “Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea,” Physiol Rev, 81, 1305-1352.

Ruggero, M. A. (2004). “Comparison of group delays of 2f(1)-f(2) distortion product otoacoustic emissions and cochlear travel,” ARLO, 4, 143-147.

Ruggero, M. A. (2007). personal communication.

Shera, C. A., and Guinan, J. J. (2003), “Stimulus-frequency-emission group delay: A test of coherent re ection ltering and a window on cochlear tuning,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 113, 2762-2772.

Additional Files

Published

2007-12-15

How to Cite

Pigasse, G., Harte, J. M., & Dau, T. (2007). Individual cochlear delay estimated with otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem measurements. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, 1, 221–230. Retrieved from https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2007-21

Issue

Section

2007/2. Physiological correlates of auditory functions