4.8 Article

Unified cochlear model for low- and high-frequency mammalian hearing

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1900695116

关键词

cochlear mechanics; low-frequency hearing; finite-element method; emergent system response; biophysics

资金

  1. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [R01 DC04084]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spatial variations of the intricate cytoarchitecture, fluid scalae, and mechano-electric transduction in the mammalian cochlea have long been postulated to provide the organ with the ability to perform a real-time, time-frequency processing of sound. However, the precise manner by which this tripartite coupling enables the exquisite cochlear filtering has yet to be articulated in a base-to-apex mathematical model. Moreover, while sound-evoked tuning curves derived from mechanical gains are excellent surrogates for auditory nerve fiber thresholds at the base of the cochlea, this correlation fails at the apex. The key factors influencing the divergence of both mechanical and neural tuning at the apex, as well as the spatial variation of mechanical tuning, are incompletely understood. We develop a model that shows that the mechanical effects arising from the combination of the taper of the cochlear scalae and the spatial variation of the cytoarchitecture of the cochlea provide robust mechanisms that modulate the outer hair cell-mediated active response and provide the basis for the transition of the mechanical gain spectra along the cochlear spiral. Further, the model predicts that the neural tuning at the base is primarily governed by the mechanical filtering of the cochlear partition. At the apex, microscale fluid dynamics and nanoscale channel dynamics must also be invoked to describe the threshold neural tuning for low frequencies. Overall, the model delineates a physiological basis for the difference between basal and apical gain seen in experiments and provides a coherent description of high- and low-frequency cochlear tuning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据