Stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions (SFOAEs), which are sounds emitted by the cochlea at the frequency of the stimulus, have been used as a noninvasive measure of cochlear function. The gradient of the SFOAE phases characterizes the latency of emission and is associated with the frequency selectivity and sharpness of tuning of the mammalian cochlea. However, whether the phase-gradient delay of SFOAE can be used as a indicator of cochlear tuning and sensitivity reliably when the proper-ties of the cochlea change remains unclear. The objective of this study is to address this question by varying cochlear model activity, tectorial membrane (TM) properties and organ of Corti (OoC) micromechanical properties to change cochlear tuning. In this work, a three-dimensional gerbil cochlear model that couples mechanical, electrical and acoustic domains with cochlear roughness has been used. The roughness is implemented on outer hair cells (OHCs) force acting on the basilar membrane (BM). Parameters that control the activity levels, TM longitudinal coupling and OoC impedance are varied. The results show that changes in sharpness of tuning due to reduction in cochlear activity and TM longitudinal coupling can be detected by using SFOAE phase-gradient delay. However, changes in cochlear tuning due to changes in OoC impedance are not necessarily reflected by corresponding changes in SFOAE phase-gradient delay.

1.
D. T.
Kemp
, “
Otoacoustic emissions, their origin in cochlear function, and use
,”
British medical bulletin
63
,
223
241
(
2002
).
2.
G.
Zweig
and
C. A.
Shera
, “
The origin of periodicity in the spectrum of evoked otoacoustic emissions
,”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
98
,
2018
2047
(
1995
).
3.
C. A.
Shera
and
J. J.
Guinan
Jr, “
Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: a taxonomy for mammalian oaes
,”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
105
,
782
798
(
1999
).
4.
C. A.
Shera
,
J. J.
Guinan
, and
A. J.
Oxenham
, “
Revised estimates of human cochlear tuning from otoacoustic and behavioral measurements
,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
99
,
3318
3323
(
2002
).
5.
C. A.
Shera
, “
Mammalian spontaneous otoacoustic emissions are amplitude-stabilized cochlear standing waves
,”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
114
,
244
262
(
2003
).
6.
C. A.
Shera
,
J. J.
Guinan
, and
A. J.
Oxenham
, “
Otoacoustic estimation of cochlear tuning: validation in the chinchilla
,”
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
11
,
343
365
(
2010
).
7.
I. J.
Russell
,
P. K.
Legan
,
V. A.
Lukashkina
,
A. N.
Lukashkin
,
R. J.
Goodyear
, and
G. P.
Richardson
, “
Sharpened cochlear tuning in a mouse with a genetically modified tectorial membrane
,”
Nature neuroscience
10
,
215
223
(
2007
).
8.
R.
Ghaffari
,
A. J.
Aranyosi
, and
D. M.
Freeman
, “
Longitudinally propagating traveling waves of the mammalian tectorial membrane
,”
Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
104
,
16510
16515
(
2007
).
9.
J.
Meaud
and
K.
Grosh
, “
The effect of tectorial membrane and basilar membrane longitudinal coupling in cochlear mechanics
,”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
127
,
1411
1421
(
2010
).
10.
T.
Bowling
,
C.
Lemons
, and
J.
Meaud
, “
Reducing tectorial membrane viscoelasticity enhances spontaneous otoacoustic emissions and com-promises the detection of low level sound
,”
Scientific reports
9
,
1
11
(
2019
).
11.
M. A.
Cheatham
, “
Comparing spontaneous and stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions in mice with tectorial membrane defects
,”
Hearing research
400
,
108143
(
2021
).
12.
T.
Bowling
,
H.
Wen
,
S. W.
Meenderink
,
W.
Dong
, and
J.
Meaud
, “
Intracochlear distortion products are broadly generated by outer hair cells but their contributions to otoacoustic emissions are spatially restricted
,”
Scientific Reports
11
,
1
14
(
2021
).
13.
H.
Wen
and
J.
Meaud
, “
Link between stimulus otoacoustic emissions fine structure peaks and standing wave resonances in a cochlear model
,”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
151
,
1875
1894
(
2022
).
14.
C. A.
Shera
and
C.
Bergevin
, “
Obtaining reliable phase-gradient delays from otoacoustic emission data
,”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
132
,
927
943
(
2012
).
15.
C. A.
Shera
and
J. J.
Guinan
, “Mechanisms of mammalian otoacoustic emission,” in
Active processes and otoacoustic emissions in hearing
(
Springer
,
2008
) pp.
305
342
.
16.
C. A.
Shera
and
J. J.
Guinan
Jr, “
Stimulus-frequency-emission group delay: A test of coherent reflection filtering and a window on cochlear tuning
,”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
113
,
2762
2772
(
2003
).
17.
S. J.
Elliott
,
E. M.
Ku
, and
B.
Lineton
, “
A state space model for cochlear mechanics
,”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
122
,
2759
2771
(
2007
).
18.
J.
Meaud
and
C.
Lemons
, “
Nonlinear response to a click in a time-domain model of the mammalian ear
,”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
138
,
193
207
(
2015
).
19.
K. K.
Charaziak
,
P.
Souza
, and
J. H.
Siegel
, “
Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission suppression tuning in humans: comparison to behavioral tuning
,”
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
14
,
843
862
(
2013
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.