Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28382742›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of physiology2017

Mechanical tuning and amplification within the apex of the guinea pig cochlea.

Alberto Recio-Spinoso, John S Oghalai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of physiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Tuning and Timing of Organ of Corti Vibrations at the Apex of the Intact Chinchilla Cochlea.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Origin Along the Cochlea of Otoacoustic Emissions Evoked by Mid-Frequency Tone Pips.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. On the Tonotopy of the Low-Frequency Region of the Cochlea.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alberto Recio-SpinosoInstituto de Investigación en Discapacidades Neurológicas, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain.
John S OghalaiDeparment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4241-6189

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key pointsA popular conception of mammalian cochlear physiology is that tuned mechanical vibration of the basilar membrane defines the frequency response of the innervating auditory nerve fibres However, the data supporting these concepts come from vibratory measurements at cochlear locations tuned to high frequencies (>7 kHz). Here, we measured the travelling wave in regions of the guinea pig cochlea that respond to low frequencies (<2 kHz) and found that mechanical tuning was broad and did not match auditory nerve tuning characteristics. Non-linear amplification of the travelling wave functioned over a broad frequency range and did not substantially sharpen frequency tuning. Thus, the neural encoding of low-frequency sounds, which includes most of the information conveyed by human speech, is not principally determined by basilar membrane mechanics. ABSTRACT: The popular notion of mammalian cochlear function is that auditory nerves are tuned to respond best to different sound frequencies because basilar membrane vibration is mechanically tuned to different frequencies along its length. However, this concept has only been demonstrated in regions of the cochlea tuned to frequencies >7 kHz, not in regions sensitive to lower frequencies where human speech is encoded. Here, we overcame historical technical limitations and non-invasively measured sound-induced vibrations at four locations distributed over the apical two turns of the guinea pig cochlea. In turn 3, the responses demonstrated low-pass filter characteristics. In turn 2, the responses were low-pass-like, in that they occasionally did have a slight peak near the corner frequency. The corner frequencies of the responses were tonotopically tuned and ranged from 384 to 668 Hz. Non-linear gain, or amplification of the vibrations in response to low-intensity stimuli, was found both below and above the corner frequencies. Post mortem, cochlear gain disappeared. The non-linear gain was typically 10-30 dB and was broad-band rather than sharply tuned. However, the gain did reach nearly 50 dB in turn 2 for higher stimulus frequencies, nearly the amount of gain found in basal cochlear regions. Thus, our data prove that mechanical responses do not match neural responses and that cochlear amplification does not appreciably sharpen frequency tuning for cochlear regions that respond to frequencies <2 kHz. These data indicate that the non-linear processing of sound performed by the guinea pig cochlea varies substantially between the cochlear apex and base.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsHearingAnimalsAuditory PerceptionCochleaFemaleGuinea PigsMaleSoundVibrationauditory systemcochleahair cellhearing

Identifiers

PMID28382742
PMCPMC5491880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.