Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions in Mice Above and Below the Eliciting Primaries.
Intermodulation distortion
Mutant mice
Otoacoustic emissions
Prestin
Tectorial membrane
Journal
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO
ISSN: 1438-7573
Titre abrégé: J Assoc Res Otolaryngol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100892857
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
received:
23
12
2022
accepted:
14
06
2023
pmc-release:
01
08
2024
medline:
18
9
2023
pubmed:
19
7
2023
entrez:
18
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Normal hearing is associated with cochlear nonlinearity. When two tones (f1 and f2) are presented, the intracochlear response contains additional components that can be recorded from the ear canal as distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs). Although the most prominent intermodulation distortion component is at 2f1-f2, other cubic distortion products are also generated. Because these measurements are noninvasive, they are used in humans and in animal models to detect hearing loss. This study evaluated how loss of sensitivity affects DPOAEs with frequencies above and below the stimulating primaries, i.e., for upper sideband (USB) components like 2f2-f1 and for lower sideband (LSB) components like 2f1-f2. DPOAEs were recorded in several mouse mutants with varying degrees of hearing loss associated with structural changes to the tectorial membrane (TM), or with loss of outer hair cell (OHC) somatic electromotility due to lack of prestin or to the expression of a non-functional prestin. In mice with changes in sensitivity, magnitude reductions were observed for 2f1-f2 relative to controls with mice lacking prestin showing the greatest changes. In contrast, 2f2-f1 was minimally affected by reductions in cochlear gain due to changes in the TM or by the loss of OHC somatic electromotility. In addition, TM mutants with spontaneous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs) generated larger responses than controls at 2f2-f1 when its frequency was similar to that for the SOAEs. Although cochlear pathologies appear to affect USB and LSB DPOAEs in different ways, both 2f1-f2 and 2f2-f1 reflect nonlinearities associated with the transducer channels. However, in mice, the component at 2f2-f1 does not appear to receive enhancement due to prestin's motor action.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37464091
doi: 10.1007/s10162-023-00903-4
pii: 10.1007/s10162-023-00903-4
pmc: PMC10504173
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
413-428Subventions
Organisme : NIDCD NIH HHS
ID : R01 DC000089
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Association for Research in Otolaryngology.
Références
Kim DO (1980) Cochlear mechanics: implications of electrophysiological and acoustical observations. Hear Res 2(3–4):297–317. PubMed PMID: 7410234
doi: 10.1016/0378-5955(80)90064-7
pubmed: 7410234
Siegel J (2008) Otoacoustic emissions. In: Basbaum AI, Kaneko A, Shepherd G, Westheimer G (eds) The Senses: A Comprehensive Reference. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 237–262
doi: 10.1016/B978-012370880-9.00023-2
Lonsbury-Martin BL, Martin GK (2008) Otoacoustic emissions: Basic studies in mammalian models. In: Manley G, Fay R, Popper A (eds) Active Processes and Otoacoustic Emissions. Springer, New York NY, pp 261–303
Zheng J, Shen W, He DZ, Long KB, Madison LD, Dallos P (2000) Prestin is the motor protein of cochlear outer hair cells. Nature 405(6783):149–155. PubMed PMID: 10821263
doi: 10.1038/35012009
pubmed: 10821263
Dallos P, Wu X, Cheatham MA, Gao J, Zheng J, Anderson CT, Jia S, Wang X, W.H.Y. C, Sengupta S, He DZZ, Zuo J (2008) Prestin-based outer hair cell motility is necessary for mammalian cochlear amplification. Neuron 58:1–7
Liberman MC, Gao J, He DZ, Wu X, Jia S, Zuo J (2022) Prestin is required for electromotility of the outer hair cell and for the cochlear amplifier. Nature 419(6904):300–304. Epub 2002/09/20. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01059 . PubMed PMID: 12239568
Cheatham MA, Huynh KH, Gao J, Zuo J, Dallos P (2004) Cochlear function in Prestin knockout mice. J Physiol 560(Pt 3):821–830. PubMed PMID: 15319415
doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2004.069559
pubmed: 15319415
pmcid: 1665294
Dallos P, Wang CY (1974) Bioelectric correlates of kanamycin intoxication. Audiology 13(4):277–289. PubMed PMID: 4606272
doi: 10.3109/00206097409071685
pubmed: 4606272
Ryan A, Dallos P (1975) Effect of absence of cochlear outer hair cells on behavioural auditory threshold. Nature 253(5486):44–46. PubMed PMID: 1110747
doi: 10.1038/253044a0
pubmed: 1110747
Brown AM, McDowell B, Forge A (1989) Acoustic distortion products can be used to monitor the effects of chronic gentamicin treatment. Hear Res 42:143–156
doi: 10.1016/0378-5955(89)90140-8
pubmed: 2606800
Legan PK, Lukashkina VA, Goodyear RJ, Kossi M, Russell IJ, Richardson GP (2000) A targeted deletion in alpha-tectorin reveals that the tectorial membrane is required for the gain and timing of cochlear feedback. Neuron 28(1):273–285. PubMed PMID: 11087000
doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)00102-1
pubmed: 11087000
Liberman MC, Zuo J, Guinan JJ Jr (2004) Otoacoustic emissions without somatic motility: can stereocilia mechanics drive the mammalian cochlea? J Acoust Soc Am 116(3):1649–1655. PubMed PMID: 15478431
doi: 10.1121/1.1775275
pubmed: 15478431
Jaramillo F, Markin VS, Hudspeth AJ (1993) Auditory illusions and the single hair cell. Nature 364(6437):527–529. PubMed PMID: 8336792
doi: 10.1038/364527a0
pubmed: 8336792
Cheatham MA (2021) Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions are biomakers for mice with tectorial membrane defects. Hear Res 409:108314
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2021.108314
pubmed: 34332206
pmcid: 8419146
Richardson GP, Lukashkin AN, Russell IJ (2008) The tectorial membrane: one slice of a complex cochlear sandwich. Curr Opin Otolaryngo 16(5):458–464. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0b013e32830e20c4.PubMedPMID:WOS:000262716300011
doi: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e32830e20c4.PubMedPMID:WOS:000262716300011
Cheatham MA, Goodyear RJ, Homma K, Legan PK, Korchagina J, Naskar S, Siegel JH, Dallos P, Zheng J, Richardson GP (2014) Loss of the tectorial membrane protein CEACAM16 enhances spontaneous, stimulus-frequency, and transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Neurosci 34(31):10325–10338. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1256-14.2014 . PubMedPMID: 25080593; PMCID: PMC4115139
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1256-14.2014
pubmed: 25080593
pmcid: 4115139
Cheatham MA, Zhou Y, Goodyear RJ, Dallos P, Richardson GP (2018) Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emissions in Tecta(Y1870C/+) Mice Reflect Changes in Cochlear Amplification and How It Is Controlled by the Tectorial Membrane. eNeuro 5(6):314–318. Epub 2019/01/11. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0314-18.2018 . PubMed PMID: 30627650; PMCID: PMC6325554
Legan PK, Lukashkina VA, Goodyear RJ, Lukashkin AN, Verhoeven K, Van Camp G, Russell IJ, Richardson GP (2005) A deafness mutation isolates a second role for the tectorial membrane in hearing. Nat Neurosci 8(8):1035–1042. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1496 . PubMed PMID: 15995703
doi: 10.1038/nn1496
pubmed: 15995703
Russell IJ, Legan PK, Lukashkina VA, Lukashkin AN, Goodyear RJ, Richardson GP (2007) Sharpened cochlear tuning in a mouse with a genetically modified tectorial membrane. Nat Neurosci 10(2):215–223. Epub 2007/01/16. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1828 . PubMed PMID: 17220887; PMCID: PMC3388746
Neely SR, Stevenson R (1992) Tech Memo No. 1. Omaha NE: Boys Town National Research Hospital
Neely S, Liu Z (1994) EMAV: otoacoustic emission averager. Boys Town National Research Hospital, Omaha NE
Goodyear RJ, Cheatham MA, Naskar S, Zhou Y, Osgood RT, Zheng J, Richardson GP (2019) Accelerated age-related degradtion of the tectorial membrane in the Ceacam16 βgal/βgal null mutant mouse, a model for late-onset human hereditary deafenss DFNB113. Front Mol Neurosci 12:147
Cheatham MA, Edge RM, Homma K, Leserman EL, Dallos P, Zheng J (2015) Prestin-dependence of outer hair cell survival and partial rescue of outer hair cell loss in Prestin V499G/Y501H knockin mice. PLoS ONE e0145428
Wilson H, Lutman M (2006) Mechanisms of generation of the 2f2-f1 distortion product otoacoustic emission in humans. J Acoust Soc Am 120
Botti T, Sisto R, Sanjust F, Moleti A, D'Amato L (2016) Distortion product otoacoustic emission generation mechanisms and their dependence on stimulus level and primary frequency ratio. J Acoustic Soc Am 139(2):658–673. PubMed PMID: Medline: 26936550
Zurek P, Clarke W (1981) Narrow-band acoustic signals emitted by chinchilla ears after noise exposure. J Acoust Soc Am 70:446–480
doi: 10.1121/1.386787
Cheatham MA, Naik K, Siegel JH, Dallos P (2011) Intermodulation DPOAEs in mice below and above the eliciting primaries. Abs Assoc Res Otolaryngol 33
Kemp D (2002) Otoacoustic emissions, their origin in cochlear function, and use. Br Med Bull 63:223–241
doi: 10.1093/bmb/63.1.223
pubmed: 12324396
Jia S, He DZZ (2005) Motility-associated hair-bundle motion in mammalian outer hair cells. Nat Neurosci 8:1028–1034
doi: 10.1038/nn1509
pubmed: 16041370
Takahashi S, Santos-Sacchi J (1999) Distortion component analysis of outer hair cell motility-related gating charge. J Membr Biol 169(3):199–207. PubMed PMID: 10354466
doi: 10.1007/s002329900531
pubmed: 10354466
Santos-Sacchi J (1993) Harmonics of outer hair cell motility. Biophys J 65(5):2217–2227. PubMed PMID: 8298045
doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(93)81247-5
pubmed: 8298045
pmcid: 1225953
Kim DO, Molnar CE, Matthews JW (1980) Cochlear mechanics: nonlinear behavior in two-tone responses as reflected in cochlear-nerve-fiber responses and in ear-canal sound pressure. J Acoust Soc Am 67(5):1704–1721. PubMed PMID: 7372925
doi: 10.1121/1.384297
pubmed: 7372925
Hall JL (1980) Cochlear models: Evidence in suppression of mechanical nonlinearities and a second filter (A review). Hear Res 2:455–464
doi: 10.1016/0378-5955(80)90082-9
pubmed: 7410250
Ren T (2004) Reverse propagation of sound in the gerbil cochlea. Nat Neurosci 7:333–334
doi: 10.1038/nn1216
pubmed: 15034589
Brown A, Kemp D (1985) Intermodulation distortion in the cochlea: could basal vibration be the major cause of round window CM distortion? Hear Res 19:191–198
doi: 10.1016/0378-5955(85)90138-8
pubmed: 4066519
Kemp D (1986) Otoacoustic emissions, travelling waves and cochlear mechanisms. Hear Res 22:95–104
doi: 10.1016/0378-5955(86)90087-0
pubmed: 3733548
Shera CA, Guinan JJ Jr (1999) Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: a taxonomy for mammalian OAEs. J Acoust Soc Am 105(2 Pt 1):782–798. PubMed PMID: 9972564
doi: 10.1121/1.426948
pubmed: 9972564
Knight RD, Kemp DT (2000) Indications of different distortion product otoacoustic emission mechnaisms from a detailed f1, f2 area study. J Acoust Soc Am 107:457–473
doi: 10.1121/1.428351
pubmed: 10641654
Dong W, Olson E (2008) Supporting evidence for reverse cochlear traveling waves. J Acoust Soc Am 123:222–240
doi: 10.1121/1.2816566
pubmed: 18177153
Wen H, Bowling T, Meaud J (2018) Investigation of the 2f1-f2 and 2f2-f1 distortion product otoacoustic emissions using a computational model of the gerbil ear. Hear Res 365:127–140
doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2018.05.011
pubmed: 29801982
Martin GK, Stagner B, Lonsbury-Martin B (2010) Evidence for basal distortion-product otoacoustic emission compnents. J Acoust Soc Am 127:2955–2972
doi: 10.1121/1.3353121
pubmed: 21117746
pmcid: 2882660
Martin GK, Lonsbury-Martin BL, Probst R, Scheinin S, Coats A (1987) Acoustic distortion products in rabbit ear canal. II Sites of origin revealed by suppression contours and pure-tone exposures. Hear Res 28
Knight RD, Kemp DT (2001) Wave and place fixed DPOAE maps of the human ear. J Acoust Soc Am 109:1513–1525
doi: 10.1121/1.1354197
pubmed: 11325123
Martin G, Stagner B, Dong W, Lonsbury-Martin B (2016) Comparing distortion product otoacoustic emissions to intracochlear distortion products inferred from a noninvasive assay. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 17:271–287
doi: 10.1007/s10162-016-0552-1
pubmed: 27229002
pmcid: 4940284
Withnell RH, Shaffer LA, Talmadge CL (2003) Generation of DPOAEs in the guinea pig. Hear Res 178(1–2):106–117. Epub 2003/04/10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-5955(03)00064-9 . PubMed PMID: 12684183
Dong W, Olson ES (2010) Local cochlear damage reduces local nonlinerity and decreases generator-type cochlear emissions while increasing reflector-type emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 1422–1431
Talmadge CL, Tubis A, Long GR, Tong C (2000) Modeling the combined effects of basilar membrane nonlinearity and roughness on stimulus frequency otoacoustic emission fine structure. J Acoust Soc Am 108(6):2911–2932. Epub 2001/01/06. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1321012 . PubMed PMID: 11144584
Dhar S, Long GR, Talmadge CL, Tubis A (2005) The effect of stimulus-frequency ratio on distortion product otoacoustic emission components. J Acoust Soc Am 117:3766–3776
Bowling T, Wen H, Meenderrnk SWF, Dong W, Meaud J (2021) Intracochlear distortion products are broadly generated by outer hair cells but their contributions to otoacoustic emissions are spatially restricted. Sci Rep 11:13651
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-93099-7
pubmed: 34211051
pmcid: 8249639
Durante AS, Akhtar US, Dhar S (2022) Distortion product otoacoustic emission component behavior as a function of primary frequency ratio and primary levels. Ear Hear 43:1824–1835
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001251
pubmed: 35853351
pmcid: 9588520
Siegel JH, Cerka AJ, Recio-Spinoso A, van Dijk P, Ruggero MA (2005) Delays of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions and cochlear vibrations contradict the theory of cohlerent refelction filtering. J Acoust Soc Am 118:2434–2443
doi: 10.1121/1.2005867
pubmed: 16266165
Charaziak KK, Siegel JH (2015) Tuning of SFOAEs Evoked by Low-Frequency Tones Is Not Compatible with Localized Emission Generation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 16(3):317–329. Epub 2015/03/31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-015-0513-0 . PubMed PMID: 25813430; PMCID: PMC4417092
Charaziak KK, Siegel JH, editors (2015) Low-frequency tone-pip-evoked otoacoustic emissions orginate over a broad cochlear region in chinchillas. Mechanics of Hearing: Proteins to Perception; American Institute of Pysics, Melville NY
Ruggero MA (1992) Responses to sound of the basilar membrane of the mammalian cochlea. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2(4):449–456. PubMed PMID: 1525542
doi: 10.1016/0959-4388(92)90179-O
pubmed: 1525542
pmcid: 3579517
Whitfield IC, Ross HF (1965) Cochlear-microphonic and summating potentials and the outputs of individual hair-cell generators. J Acoust Soc Am 38:126–131
doi: 10.1121/1.1909586
pubmed: 14347603
Dewey JB (2022) Cubic and quadratic distortion products in vibrations of the mouse cochlear apex. JASA Express Lett 2(11):114402. Epub 2022/12/02. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0015244 . PubMed PMID: 36456371; PMCID: PMC9704500
Wegel R, Lane C (1924) The auditory masking of one pure tone by another and its probable relation to the dynamics of the inner ear. Phys Rev 23:266–285
doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.23.266
Egan J, Hake H (1950) On the masking pattern of a simple auditory stimulus. J Acoust Soc Am 22:622–630
doi: 10.1121/1.1906661