Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
REVIEW PAPER
REPTILE EARS AND MAMMALIAN EARS: HEARING WITHOUT
A TRAVELLING WAVE
1
Eccles Institute of Neuroscience, John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
Publication date: 2012-09-30
J Hear Sci 2012;2(3):14-22
ABSTRACT
This paper takes a closer look at the functional similarities between reptile ears and mammalian ears. The ears of the
first class of animal are generally acknowledged to lack travelling waves – because the sensing cells sit upon a stiff support – whereas the ears of the second group are commonly thought to act differently, having hair cells arranged upon
a compliant basilar membrane that moves under the action of a travelling wave (created by a pressure difference across
the membrane) so that the wave bends the cells’ stereocilia. However, recent work suggests that the mammalian case can
be explained without reliance upon a travelling wave as a causal stimulus and that the responses observed can be interpreted as local resonances driven by a fast pressure wave. In this light, reptiles and mammals may have more in common
than currently appreciated – they might both be forced resonant systems – and this paper explores such a possibility.
REFERENCES (58)
1.
Bergevin C, Shera CA: Coherent reflection without traveling waves: on the origin of long-latency otoacoustic emissions in lizards. J Acoust Soc Am, 2010; 127: 2398–409.
2.
Ruggero MA, Temchin AN: Similarity of traveling-wave delays in the hearing organs of humans and other tetrapods. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2007; 8: 153–66.
3.
Meenderink SWF, Narins PM: Stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions in the Northern leopard frog, Rana pipiens pipiens: implications for inner ear mechanics. Hear Res, 2006; 220: 67–75.
4.
Manley GA, Yates GK, Koeppl C: Auditory peripheral tuning: evidence for a simple resonance phenomenon in the lizard Tiliqua. Hear Res, 1988; 33: 181–90.
5.
Peake WT, Ling A: Basilar-membrane motion in the alligator lizard: its relation to tonotopic organization and frequency selectivity. J Acoust Soc Am, 1980; 67: 1736–45.
7.
Manley GA: Peripheral Hearing Mechanisms in Reptiles and Birds. New York, Springer-Verlag, 1990.
9.
Miller MR: Scanning electron microscopy of the lizard papilla basilaris. Brain, Behaviour and Evolution, 1974; 10: 95–112.
10.
Bell A: Sensors, motors, and tuning in the cochlea: interacting cells could form a surface acoustic wave resonator. Bioinsp Biomim, 2006; 1: 96–101.
11.
Bell A, Fletcher NH: The cochlear amplifier as a standing wave: “squirting” waves between rows of outer hair cells? J Acoust Soc Am, 2004; 116: 1016–24.
12.
Bergevin C, Velenovsky DS, Bonine KE: Tectorial membrane morphological variation: effects upon stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions. Biophys J, 2010; 99: 1064–72.
13.
Bergevin C: Comparison of otoacoustic emissions within Gecko subfamilies: morphological implications for auditory function in lizards. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2011; 12: 203–17.
14.
He W, Fridberger A, Porsov E et al: Reverse wave propagation in the cochlea. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 2008; 105: 2729–33.
15.
Wilson JP: Model for cochlear echoes and tinnitus based on an observed electrical correlate. Hear Res, 1980; 2: 527–32.
16.
de Boer E, Nuttall AL: Inverse-solution method for a class of non-classical cochlear models. J Acoust Soc Am, 2009; 125: 2146–54.
17.
Ruggero MA, Temchin AN: Unexceptional sharpness of frequency tuning in the human cochlea. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA, 2005; 102: 18614–19.
18.
Dong W, Olson ES: Supporting evidence for reverse cochlear travelling waves. J Acoust Soc Am, 2008; 123: 222–40.
19.
de Boer E, Zheng J, Porsov E, Nuttall AL: Inverted direction of wave propagation (IDWP) in the cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am, 2008; 123: 1513–21.
20.
Bell JA: The Underwater Piano: A Resonance Theory of Cochlear Mechanics. PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, 2005. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/1885/493....
22.
Patuzzi RB: Cochlear micromechanics and macromechanics. In: Dallos P, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds.), The Cochlea. New York, Springer, 1996; 186–257.
23.
Bell A: Detection without deflection? A hypothesis for direct sensing of sound pressure by hair cells. J Biosci, 2007; 32: 385–404.
24.
Bell A: The pipe and the pinwheel: is pressure an effective stimulus for the 9+0 primary cilium? Cell Biol Int, 2008; 32: 462–68.
25.
Bell A: Are outer hair cells pressure sensors? Basis of a SAW model of the cochlear amplifier. In: Gummer AW (ed.), Biophysics of the Cochlea: From Molecules to Models. Singapore: World Scientific, 2003; 429–31.
26.
Bell A: Tuning the cochlea: wave-mediated positive feedback between cells. Biol Cybern, 2007; 96: 421–38.
27.
Narayan SS, Temchin AN, Recio A, Ruggero MA: Frequency tuning of basilar membrane and auditory nerve fibers in the same cochlea. Science, 1998; 282: 1882–84.
28.
Shera CA, Guinan JJ: Stimulus-frequency-emission group delay: a test of coherent reflection filtering and a window on cochlear tuning. J Acoust Soc Am, 2003; 113: 2762–72.
29.
Shera CA, Guinan JJ, Oxenham AJ: Revised estimates of human cochlear tuning from otoacoustic and behavioral measurements. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 2002; 99: 3318–23.
30.
Greenwood DD: Critical bandwidth and the frequency coordinates of the basilar membrane. J Acoust Soc Am, 1961; 33: 1344–56.
31.
Sisto R, Moleti A, Botti T, Bertaccini D, Shera CA: Distortion products and backward-traveling waves in nonlinear active models of the cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am, 2011; 129: 3141–52.
32.
Neely ST, Norton SJ, Gorga MP, Jesteadt W: Latency of auditory brain-stem responses and otoacoustic emissions using tone-burst stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am, 1988; 83: 652–56.
33.
Moleti A, Sisto R: Comparison between otoacoustic and auditory brainstem response latencies supports backward propagation of otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am, 2008; 123: 1495–503.
34.
Shera CA: Mammalian spontaneous otoacoustic emissions are amplitude-stabilized cochlear standing waves. J Acoust Soc Am, 2003; 114: 244–62.
35.
Ren T: Reverse propagation of sound in the gerbil cochlea. Nat Neurosci, 2004; 7: 333–34.
36.
Meenderink S, Van der Heijden M: Reverse propagation in the intact cochlea of the gerbil: evidence for slow traveling waves. J Neurophysiol, 2010; 103: 1448–55.
37.
Ren T, Porsov E: Reverse propagation of sounds in the intact cochlea (letter). J Neurophysiol, 2010; 104: 3732.
38.
Shera CA, Tubis A, Talmadge CL: Do forward- and backwardtraveling waves occur within the cochlea? Countering the critique of Nobili et al. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2004; 5: 349–59.
39.
Shera CA, Tubis A, Talmadge CL et al: Allen-Fahey and related experiments support the predominance of cochlear slow-wave otoacoustic emission. J Acoust Soc Am, 2007; 121: 1564–75.
40.
Meenderink S, Van der Heijden M: Reply to Ren and Porsov: reverse propagation of sounds in the intact cochlea. J Neurophysiol, 2010; 104: 3733.
41.
Li YT, Grosh K: Direction of wave propagation in the cochlea for internally excited basilar membrane. J Acoust Soc Am, 2012; 131: 4710–21.
42.
Reichenbach T, Hudspeth AJ: A ratchet mechanism for amplification in low-frequency hearing. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 2010; 107: 4973–78.
43.
Hudspeth AJ, Juelicher F, Martin P: A critique of the critical cochlea: Hopf – a bifurcation – is better than none. J Neurophysiol, 2010; 104: 1219–29.
44.
Reichenbach T, Stefanovic A, Nin F, Hudspeth AJ: Waves on Reissner’s membrane: a mechanism for the propagation of otoacoustic emissions from the cochlea. Cell Reports, 2012; 1: 374–84.
45.
Guild SR: Comments on the physiology of hearing and the anatomy of the inner ear. Laryngoscope, 1937; 47: 365–72.
46.
Naftalin L: The transmission of acoustic energy from air to the receptor organ in the cochlea. Life Sci, 1963; 2: 101–6.
47.
Pohlman AG: A reconsideration of the mechanics of the auditory apparatus. J Laryngol Otol, 1933; 48: 156–95.
48.
Davis H, Derbyshire AJ, Lurie MH, Saul LJ: The electric response of the cochlea. Am J Physiol, 1934; 107: 311–32.
49.
Dong X, Ospeck M, Iwasa KH: Piezoelectric reciprocal relationship of the membrane motor in the cochlear outer hair cell. Biophys J, 2002; 82: 1254–59.
50.
Békésy Gv: Some similarities in sensory perception of fish and man. In: Cahn PH (ed.), Lateral Line Detectors. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967; 417–35.
51.
Chiappe ME, Kozlov AS, Hudspeth AJ: The structural and functional differentiation of hair cells in a lizard’s basilar papilla suggests an operational principle of amniote cochleas. J Neurosci, 2007; 27: 11978–85.
52.
Dorn E: Über den Feinbau der Swimmblase von Anguilla vulgaris L. Zeitschrift fur Zellforschung, 1961; 55: 849–912 [in German].
53.
Gold T. Hearing. II. The physical basis of the action of the cochlea. Proc Roy Soc Lond B, 1948; 135: 492–98.
54.
Gold T: The theory of hearing. In: Messel H (ed.), Highlights in Science. Sydney; Pergamon, 1987; 149–57.
55.
Guinan JJ: Physiology of olivocochlear efferents. In: Dallos P, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds.), The Cochlea. New York: Springer, 1996; 435–502.
56.
Barral J, Dierkes K, Lindner B et al: Coupling a sensory haircell bundle to cyber clones enhances nonlinear amplification. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 2010; 107: 8079–84.
57.
Gelfand M, Piro O, Magnasco MO, Hudspeth AJ: Interactions between hair cells shape spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in a model of the tokay gecko’s cochlea. PLoS One, 2010; 5: e11116.
58.
Manley GA: Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions from freestanding stereovillar bundles of ten species of lizard with small papillae. Hear Res, 2006; 212: 33–47.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
