A behavioral measure of the basilar membrane response can be obtained by comparing the growth in forward masking for maskers at, and well below, the signal frequency. Since the off-frequency masker is assumed to be processed linearly at the signal place, the difference in masking growth with level is thought to reflect the compressive response to the on-frequency masker. The present experiment used an electrophysiological analog of this technique, based on measurements of the latency of wave V of the auditory brainstem response elicited by a 4-kHz, 4-ms pure tone, presented at 65 dB SPL. Responses were obtained in quiet and in the presence of either an on-frequency (4 kHz) or an off-frequency (1.8 kHz) pure-tone forward masker. Wave V latency increased with masker level, although the increase was greater for the off-frequency masker than for the on-frequency masker, consistent with a more compressive response to the latter. Response functions generated from the data showed the characteristic shape, with a nearly linear response at lower levels and 4:1 compression at higher levels. However, the breakpoint between the linear region and the compressive region was at about 60 dB SPL, higher than expected on the basis of previous physiological and psychophysical measures.

Keywords:
On-frequency, Off-frequency, Latency shift, Linear, Compressive nonlinearity, Basilar membrane input-output function
1.
Ananthanarayan AK, Gerken GM: Post-stimulatory effects on the auditory brainstem response: partial-masking and enhancement. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1983;55:223–226.
2.
Ananthanarayan AK, Gerken GM: Response enhancement and reduction of the ABR in a forward-masking paradigm. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987;66:427–439.
3.
Backus BC, Guinan JJ: Measurement of the distribution of medial olivocochlear acoustic reflex strengths across normal-hearing individuals via otoacoustic emissions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007;8:484–496.
4.
Brown CJ, Abbas PJ: A comparison of AP and ABR tuning characteristics In the guinea pig. Hear Res 1987;25:193–204.
5.
Burkard R, Sims D: The human auditory brainstem responses to high click rates: aging effects. Am J Audiol 2001;10:53–61.
6.
Cooper NP, Yates GK: Nonlinear input-output functions derived from the responses of guinea-pig cochlear nerve fibres: variations with characteristic frequency. Hear Res 1994;78:221–234.
7.
Coats AC: Depression of click action potentials by attenuation, cooling and masking. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1971;284:1–19.
8.
Dolan DF, Nuttall AL: Masked cochlear whole-nerve response intensity functions altered by electrical stimulation of the crossed olivocochlear bundle. J Acoust Soc Am 1988;83:1081–1086.
9.
Dolan TG, Mills JH, Schmiedt RA: A comparison of brainstem, whole-nerve AP and single-fiber tuning curves in the gerbil: normative data. Hear Res 1985a;17:259–266.
10.
Dolan TG, Mills JH, Schmiedt RA: Brainstem, whole-nerve AP and single-fiber suppression in the gerbil: normative data. Hear Res 1985b;18:203–210.
11.
Don M, Allen AR, Starr A: Effect of click rate on the latency of auditory brainstem responses in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1977;86:186–195.
12.
Dorn PA, Konrad-Martin D, Neely ST, Keefe DH, Cyr E, Gorga MP: Distortion product otoacoustic emission input/output functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired human ears. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:3119–3131.
13.
Elshintinawy AA, Abbas PJ: AP and ABR tuning curves: a comparative study. J Acoust Soc Am 1987;82:S117.
14.
Ferry TE, Meddis R: A computer model of medial efferent suppression in the mammalian auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;122:3519–3526.
15.
Geisler CD: Hypothesis on the function of the crossed olivocochlear bundle (letter). J Acoust Soc Am 1974;56:1908–1909.
16.
Gorga MP, McGee J, Walsh EJ, Javel E, Farley GR: ABR measurements in the cat using a forward-masking paradigm. J Acoust Soc Am 1983;73:256–261.
17.
Gorga MP, Neely ST, Dierking DM, Kopun J, Jolkowski K, Groenenboom K, Tan H, Stiegemann BJ: Low-frequency and high-frequency cochlear nonlinearity in humans. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;122:1671–1680.
18.
Guinan JJ, Stankovic KM: Medial efferent inhibition produces the largest equivalent attenuations at moderate to high sound levels in cat auditory-nerve fibers. J Acoust Soc Am 1996;100:1680–1690.
19.
Harkins SW, McEvoy TM, Scott ML: Effects of interstimulus interval on latency of the brainstem auditory evoked potentials. Int J Neurosci 1979;10:7–14.
20.
Harris D, Dallos P: Forward-masking of auditory nerve fiber responses. J Neurophysiol 1979;42:1083–1107.
21.
Hirsh IJ, Bilger RC: Auditory-threshold recovery after exposures to pure tones. J Acoust Soc Am 1955;27:1186–1194.
22.
Kawase T, Delgutte B, Liberman MC: Antimasking effects of the olivocochlear reflex. II. Enhancement of auditory-nerve response to masked tones. J Neurophysiol 1993;70:2533–2549.
23.
Kevanishvilli A, Lagidze Z: Recovery function of the human brainstem auditory evoked potential. Audiology 1979;18:472–484.
24.
Kramer SJ, Teas DC: Forward masking of auditory nerve (N1) and brainstem (wave V) responses in humans. J Acoust Soc Am 1982;72:795–803.
25.
Lasky RE, Rupert AR: Temporal masking of auditory evoked brainstem responses in human newborns and adults. Hear Res 1982;6:315–334.
26.
Moller AR, Jannetta PJ: Evoked potentials from the inferior colliculus in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1982;53:612–620.
27.
Nelson DA, Schroder AC, Wojtczak M: A new procedure for measuring peripheral compression in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:2045–2064.
28.
Oates P, Stapells DR: Frequency specificity of the human auditory brainstem and middle latency responses to brief tones. I. High-pass noise masking. J Acoust Soc Am 1997a;102:3597–3608.
29.
Oates P, Stapells DR: Frequency specificity of the human auditory brainstem and middle latency responses to brief tones. II. Derived response analyses. J Acoust Soc Am 1997b;102:3609–3619.
30.
Oates PA, Purdy SC: Frequency specificity of the human auditory brainstem and middle latency responses using notched noise masking. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:995–1009.
31.
Oxenham AJ, Plack CJ: A behavioral measure of basilar-membrane nonlinearity in listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;101:3666–3675.
32.
Patuzzi R: A four-state kinetic model of the temporary threshold shift after loud sound based on inactivation of hair cell transduction channels. Hear Res 1998;125:39–70.
33.
Picton TW, Hillyard S, Krausz H, Galambos R: Human auditory-evoked potentials. I. Evaluation of components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1974;36:179–190.
34.
Plack CJ, Oxenham AJ: Basilar-membrane nonlinearity estimated by pulsation threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;107:501–507.
35.
Plack CJ, Drga V: Psychophysical evidence for auditory compression at low characteristic frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;113:1574–1586.
36.
Plack CJ, Drga V, Lopez-Poveda EA: Inferred basilar-membrane response functions for listeners with mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:1684–1695.
37.
Plack CJ, Oxenham AJ, Drga V: Masking by inaudible sounds and the linearity of temporal summation. J Neurosci 2006;26:8767–8773.
38.
Praat H, Sohmer H: Intensity and rate functions of cochlear and brainstem evoked responses to click stimuli in man. Arch Oto Rhino Laryngol 1976;212:85–92.
39.
Prijs VF: On peripheral auditory adaptation. II. Comparison of electrically and acoustically evoked action potentials in the guinea pig. Acustica 1980;45:1–8.
40.
Rajan R, Johnstone BM: Crossed cochlear influences on monaural temporary threshold shifts. Hear Res 1983;9:279–294.
41.
Reiter ER, Liberman MC: Efferent-mediated protection from acoustic overexposure: relation to slow effects of olivocochlear stimulation. J Neurophysiol 1995;73:506–514.
42.
Rhode WS: Observations of the vibration of the basilar membrane in squirrel monkeys using the Mössbauer technique. J Acoust Soc Am 1971;49(suppl 2):1218+.
43.
Rhode WS, Robles L: Evidence from Mössbauer experiments for nonlinear vibration in the cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 1974;55:588–596.
44.
Rhode WS, Recio A: Study of mechanical motions in the basal region of the chinchilla cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;107:3317–3332.
45.
Robles L, Ruggero MA, Rich NC: Basilar membrane mechanics at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. I. Input-output functions, tuning curves, and response phases. J Acoust Soc Am 1986;80:1364–1374.
46.
Rowe MJ: Normal variability of the brainstem auditory evoked response in young and old adult subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1978;44:459–470.
47.
Ruggero MA, Rich NC: Furosemide alters organ of corti mechanics: evidence for feedback of outer hair cells upon the basilar membrane. J Neurosci 1991;11:1057–1067.
48.
Ruggero MA: Responses to sound of the basilar membrane of the mammalian cochlea. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1992;2:449–456.
49.
Ruggero MA, Rich NC, Recio A: Alteration of basilar membrane responses to sound by acoustic overstimulation; in Duifhuis H, Horst JW, Dijk Pv, Netten SMv (eds): Biophysics of Hair Cell Sensory Systems. Singapore, World Scientific, 1993, pp 258–265.
50.
Ruggero MA, Rich NC, Robles L, Recio A: The effects of acoustic overstimulation, other cochlear injury and death on basilar membrane responses to sound; in Salvi RJ, Axelsson A, Henderson D, Hamernik R (eds): Effects of Noise on Hearing: Vth International Symposium. Stockholm, Thieme Medical, 1995.
51.
Ruggero MA, Rich NC, Recio A, Narayan SS, Robles L: Basilar-membrane responses to tones at the base of the chinchilla cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;101:2151–2163.
52.
Russell IJ, Nilsen KE: The location of the cochlear amplifier: spatial representation of a single tone on the guinea pig basilar membrane. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997;94:2660–2664.
53.
Russell IJ, Murugasu E: Medial efferent inhibition suppresses basilar membrane responses to near characteristic frequency tones of moderate to high intensities. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;102:1734–1738.
54.
Sellick PM, Patuzzi R, Johnstone BM: Measurement of basilar membrane motion in the guinea pig using the Mössbauer technique. J Acoust Soc Am 1982;72:131–141.
55.
Spoor A, Eggermont JJ, Odenthal DW: Comparison of human and animal data concerning adaptation and masking of eighth nerve compound action potential; in Ruben R, Elberling C, Solomon G (eds): Electrocochleography. Baltimore, University Press, 1976, pp 183–198.
56.
Strickland E: The temporal effect with notched-noise maskers: analysis in terms of input-output functions. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;115:2234–2245.
57.
Thornton AR, Coleman MJ: The adaptation of cochlear and brainstem auditory evoked potentials in humans. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1975;39:399–406.
58.
Yagi T, Kaga K: The effect of click repetition rate on the latency of the auditory brainstem response and its clinical use for a neurological diagnosis. Arch Otolaryngol 1979;222:91–97.
59.
Yates GK, Winter IM, Robertson D: Basilar membrane nonlinearity determines auditory nerve rate-intensity functions and cochlear dynamic range. Hearing Res 1990;45:203–220.
60.
Yates GK: Cochlear structure and function; in Moore BCJ (ed): Hearing. San Diego, Academic, 1995, pp 41–73.
61.
Winslow RL, Sachs MB: Single-tone intensity discrimination based on auditory-nerve rate responses in backgrounds of quiet, noise, and with stimulation of the crossed olivocochlear bundle. Hear Res 1988;35:165–189.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.