What is the quietest sound the ear can detect? All sounds begin as vibrating air molecules, which enter the ear and cause the eardrum to vibrate. We can detect vibrations that move the eardrum by a distance of less than one picometer. That’s one thousandth of a nanometer, or about 100 times smaller than a hydrogen atom. But how does the ear achieve this level of sensitivity?

Vibrations of the eardrum cause three small bones within the middle ear to vibrate. The vibrations then spread to the cochlea, a fluid-filled spiral structure in the inner ear. Tiny hair cells lining the cochlea move as a result of the vibrations. There are two types of hair cells: inner and outer. Outer hair cells amplify the vibrations. It is this amplification that enables us to detect such small movements of the eardrum. Inner hair cells then convert the amplified vibrations into electrical signals, which travel via the auditory nerve to the brain.

The bases of outer hair cells are connected to a structure called the basilar membrane, while their tops are anchored to a structure called the reticular lamina. It was generally assumed that outer hair cells amplify vibrations of the basilar membrane via a local positive feedback mechanism that requires the hair cells to vibrate first. But by comparing the timing of reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibrations in gerbils, He et al. show that this is not the case. Outer hair cells vibrate after the basilar membrane, not before. This indicates that outer hair cells use a mechanism other than commonly assumed local feedback to amplify sounds.

The results presented by He et al. change our understanding of how the cochlea works, and may help bioengineers to design better hearing aids and cochlea implants. Millions of patients worldwide who suffer from hearing loss may ultimately stand to benefit.

The exceptional sensitivity of mammalian hearing has been attributed to a micromechanical feedback system inside the cochlea, also called ‘the cochlear amplifier’ or ‘cochlear active process’ (Dallos et al., 2008; Davis, 1983; Fettiplace and Hackney, 2006; Hudspeth, 2014; Robles and Ruggero, 2001; Russell et al., 2007). When sound-induced basilar membrane vibrations deflect hair bundles of the outer hair cells, mechanoelectrical transduction of these cells generates the receptor potential (Dallos et al., 1982; Russell and Sellick, 1983). In response to the membrane potential change, mammalian outer hair cells change their length and generate force primarily through the somatic motility driven by the motor protein, prestin (Ashmore, 2008; Brownell et al., 1985; Liberman et al., 2002; Mammano and Ashmore, 1993; Mellado Lagarde et al., 2008; Ren et al., 2016a; Santos-Sacchi, 1989; Zheng et al., 2000). This cellular force is thought to be directly applied to the basilar membrane at its generation location on a cycle-by-cycle basis, consequently amplifying the sound-induced basilar membrane vibration and boosting hearing sensitivity (Dallos et al., 2008; de Boer, 1995b; Dong and Olson, 2013; Hudspeth, 2014; Liu and Neely, 2009; Reichenbach and Hudspeth, 2014).

For optimal amplification, the cellular force must act on the basilar membrane at an appropriate time at every vibration cycle (Dallos et al., 2008; Nilsen and Russell, 1999). Therefore, timing of the cochlear feedback has been a central research topic in the field of auditory neuroscience since the cochlear amplifier was proposed (Ashmore, 2008; Davis, 1983; Gold, 1948; Gummer et al., 1996). Because cochlear amplification depends on normal cochlear metabolism and the integrity of cochlear mechanical properties (Cooper and Rhode, 1992; Fisher et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2016; Nuttall et al., 1991; Ren and Nuttall, 2001; Rhode, 1971; Robles and Ruggero, 2001; Ruggero and Rich, 1991; van der Heijden and Versteegh, 2015), the cochlear feedback has to be investigated ultimately in living cochleae. Timing of cochlear feedback was studied in vivo by measuring basilar membrane vibrations at different locations across the width of the basilar membrane in guinea pig (Nilsen and Russell, 1999). Based on their observation, the authors suggest that forces generated by the outer hair cells directly drive the region of the basilar membrane beneath the Deiters' cells. The temporal relationship between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration was previously observed in guinea pigs using a time-domain optical coherence tomography system as a homodyne interferometer (Chen et al., 2011). It was reported that the phase of the reticular lamina vibration led the phase of the basilar membrane vibration at the best frequency (Figure 5, Chen et al., 2011). This phase lead has been thought to ensure the right timing of the outer hair cell force for cochlear amplification. However, the mouse micromechanical data measured using a heterodyne low-coherence interferometer showed no significant phase difference between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration at the best frequency (Ren et al., 2016b). This discrepancy may have been caused by the animal species and technical differences, that is mouse versus guinea pig and homodyne interferometry versus heterodyne interferometry. Although a number of studies have been conducted recently to measure micromechanical responses in living cochleae (Gao et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2016; Ramamoorthy et al., 2016; Recio-Spinoso and Oghalai, 2017; Cooper et al., 2018) the timing of the cochlear feedback remains unclear. Since the apical end of outer hair cells is directly connected to the reticular lamina, the reticular lamina vibration can reflect the movement of the outer hair cell under physiological conditions. Therefore, the timing of the cochlear feedback was determined in this study by measuring the latency difference between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration using a custom-built heterodyne low-coherence interferometer (Hong and Freeman, 2006; Ren et al., 2016a; Ren et al., 2016b). The present data collected from the gerbil, one of the most commonly used animals for auditory research, demonstrate for the first time that the reticular lamina vibrates after, not before, the basilar membrane vibration.

This paper reports the first in vivo measurement of the latency difference between the outer hair cell-driven reticular lamina vibration and the basilar membrane vibration. The present data demonstrate that the latency of the reticular lamina vibration is greater than that of the basilar membrane vibration, and there is no significant phase difference between the two structures near the best frequencies. This result is consistent with the mouse data measured using heterodyne interferometry (Ren et al., 2016b) but inconsistent with the guinea pig data, which showed that the phase of the reticular lamina vibration leads the phase of the basilar membrane vibration by ~90° at the best frequency and the phase lead decreases with sound pressure level (Chen et al., 2011). The current result also confirms recent studies in the mouse (Ren et al., 2016b) and in the guinea pig (Recio-Spinoso and Oghalai, 2017) that the physiologically vulnerable reticular lamina vibration is significantly greater than the basilar membrane vibration not only at the best frequency but also at low frequencies. Since an ~90° phase lead of the reticular lamina vibration is thought to be required for cochlear feedback to amplify basilar membrane vibration (Chen et al., 2011; Gummer et al., 1996; Nilsen and Russell, 1999; Robles and Ruggero, 2001; Russell and Nilsen, 1997), and since cochlear amplification has been predicted to work only near the best frequency location (de Boer, 1995a; Dong and Olson, 2013; Liu et al., 2017; Liu and Neely, 2009; Meaud and Grosh, 2012; Motallebzadeh et al., 2018; Ni et al., 2016132016; Ramamoorthy et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2016), the current result is inconsistent with the local cochlear feedback hypothesis. Instead, the latency difference between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration found in this study supports the global hydromechanical mechanism for cochlear amplification (Ren et al., 2016b), which is discussed below.

The longitudinal patterns of the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibrations at the best-frequency (26 kHz) are presented by plotting displacements and phases (Figure 1A,B,E,F) as a function of the location along the cochlear length (blue and red lines in Figure 5A–D), which was derived from the stimulus frequency according to the cochlear frequency-location function (Müller, 1996). While a 30 dB SPL tone-induced response occurred at a < 0.2 mm region at the best-frequency location (Figure 5A,C), a 70 dB SPL tone-induced vibration extended from the best-frequency location to the base (Figure 5B,D). The overlapping phase curves near the 2.05 mm location (blue and red lines in Figure 5C,D) indicate that the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibrated approximately in the same direction at the best-frequency location. The ~180 degree separation between the blue and red lines near the cochlear base (Figure 5D) indicates opposite vibrations of the reticular lamina and basilar membrane.

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

The outer hair cell-driven active movement was estimated by vector subtraction of the basilar membrane vibration from the measured reticular lamina vibration and is presented by green lines in Figure 5A–D. The overlapping blue and green lines in Figure 5A and C indicate that, at low sound levels, reticular lamina vibration is dominated by outer hair cell-driven movement. At 70 dB SPL, the outer hair cell-driven responses saturated near the best-frequency location, indicated by the diverged blue and green lines near the response peak (Figure 5B).

Time waveforms of the outer hair cell-driven reticular lamina vibrations (green) and the basilar membrane vibrations (red) in Figure 5E,F were derived from magnitude and phase in Figure 5A–D at two sequential times. The time difference between solid and dotted green curves is ~6 µs, equivalent to ~57 degree phase difference at 26 kHz. For clearer comparison, basilar membrane time waveforms (red curves) were shifted down by 4 nm in Figure 5E and by 50 nm in Figure 5F respectively. When the basilar membrane moves upward to the scala vestibuli near the cochlear base (red arrow at 0.8 mm in Figure 5F), depolarized outer hair cells shorten and induce a large downward reticular lamina displacement (green arrow at 0.8 mm in Figure 5F). While this movement creates a positive fluid pressure between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane at the cochlear base (0.7–1.2 mm in Figure 5F,G), the reticular lamina at locations ~ 1.2–1.8 mm, however, moves upward (green arrows near 1.6 mm in Figure 5F), resulting in a negative fluid pressure inside the cochlear partition. This pressure gradient from the base to an apical location likely results in fluid movement in the apical direction inside the cochlear partition (blue arrows in Figure 5F,G) as demonstrated in vitro by electrically stimulating the organ of Corti (Karavitaki and Mountain, 2007; Zagadou and Mountain, 2012). Since the organ of Corti sits on the basilar membrane, the longitudinal fluid movement can travel forward to the best-frequency location as a result of the basilar membrane traveling wave. Thus, a large population of outer hair cells from a broad cochlear area can change the fluid space between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane at the best frequency location on a cycle-by-cycle basis, consequently enhancing the reticular lamina vibration. In addition, in-phase vibrations of the reticular lamina and basilar membrane result in constructive interference near the best-frequency location (Figure 5E,F,G), which further enhances reticular lamina vibration at the apical end of outer hair cells. The magnitude of the resulting constructive interference decreases as phase differences move into destructive interference regimes at frequencies below and above the best frequency. While this frequency dependent interference may consequently enhance the tuning of the reticular lamina vibration, its effects probably is relatively small due to the large magnitude difference between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration. The interaction between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane at low frequencies may also be involved in two-tone suppression of the auditory nerve or basilar membrane response (Delgutte, 1990; Ruggero et al., 1992). It has been shown that the proposed global hydromechanical mechansm is consistent with the observation that auditory nerve activities can be suppressed by stimulating medial olivocochlear efferents or by a low-frequency bias tone not only at the best frequency but also at tail (low) frequencies (Nam and Guinan, 2017; Stankovic and Guinan, 1999).

Since the stereocilia bundles of both the inner and outer hair cells are anchored in the hair cell cuticular plates which make up a portion of the reticular lamina, the outer hair cell-driven reticular lamina vibration likely results in fluid movement in the subtectorial space and consequently stimulates inner hair cells. It has been shown in vitro that electrical stimulation of outer hair cells of guinea pig cochleae resulted in a counterphasic motion of the tectorial membrane and inner hair cells at frequencies below 3 kHz (Nowotny and Gummer, 2006). This result was believed to indicate direct fluid coupling between outer hair cells and inner hair cells through a pulsatile fluid motion. It has also been demonstrated in vitro that outer hair cell stereocilia not only move sideways but also change length in response to sound stimulation (Hakizimana et al., 2012). The large bundle deflection was observed when the length change was small, indicating that hair cells are maximally stimulated when the stereocilia length change is minimal. Considering the firm connection of the tallest stereocilia to the tectorial membrane, the stereocilia length change also suggests the interaction between the reticular lamina vibration and the tectorial membrane vibration. Thus, outer hair cells may also play a role in the traveling wave on the tectorial membrane, which has been demonstrated in vitro (Ghaffari et al., 2007; Ghaffari et al., 2010) and in vivo (Dong and Cooper, 2006; Lee et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2016; Recio-Spinoso and Oghalai, 2017; Rhode and Cooper, 1996). The interaction between the reticular lamina and tectorial membrane vibration may enhance the stimulus to the inner hair cells and boost hearing sensitivity. Specific mechanisms on how the outer hair cell-driven reticular lamina vibration stimulates inner hair cells, however, remain to be determined experimentally until in vivo micromechanical measurements with cellular spatial resolution become available.

The observed additional delay of the reticular lamina vibration was likely caused by mechanoelectrical (Corey and Hudspeth, 1979) and electromechanical (Brownell et al., 1985) transduction of outer hair cells and mechanical coupling inside the cochlear partition. Although delays for prestin-associated currents in vitro (Santos-Sacchi and Tan, 2018) are longer than the latency difference between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration in vivo, they vary with the membrane voltage of outer hair cells. Voltage excitation away from the resting membrane potential has been shown to have a faster response. Moreover, the depolarized resting potential can minimize the outer hair cell time constant and expanding the bandwidth of the membrane filter by activating voltage-dependent K + conductance (Johnson et al., 2011). Mechanical loads on the outer hair cells, such as in vivo condition, could further improve the cell's frequency response (Iwasa, 2017). Since Deiters' cells are located between the outer hair cells and the basilar membrane, the acoustical and cellular forces to and from the outer hair cells have to be transmitted through Deiters' cells. The soft Deiter's cell soma likely induces delays, which can contribute to the delay difference between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration. This apparently is supported by the postmortem magnitude and phase difference between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration (Figure 2). When the outer hair cell-generated force is absent under postmortem conditions, the reticular lamina should move passively following the basilar membrane travelling wave with equal magnitude and phase, if the connection between the two structures is rigid. The larger postmortem magnitude and phase difference in gerbils (Figure 2) than those in mice (Figure 2G and H, Ren et al., 2016b) indicate that the mechanical coupling between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane in the gerbil may not be as tight as that in the mouse.

Compared to a large time period (T) at a low frequency (f) (T = 1/f) (such as T = 2,000 µs, where f = 500 Hz), a 17.9-µs latency difference (Figure 3J) is negligible and results in an insignificant phase difference. Thus, the ~180 degree phase difference between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration at a low frequency mainly reflects the opposite movements of both ends of outer hair cells (Brownell et al., 1985). The same latency difference, however, can result in ~180 degree phase difference at the best frequency, due to the small period (such as T = 38 µs, where f = 26 kHz). This latency-induced phase lag of the reticular lamina vibration, compensating for the ~180 degree phase difference observed at low frequencies, accounts for in-phase vibrations of the reticular lamina and basilar membrane at the best frequency. Therefore, the present in vivo results do not conflict with the in vitro observation that both ends of the cylindrical outer hair cells move in opposite directions at low frequencies (Brownell et al., 1985; Santos-Sacchi, 1989).

In summary, heterodyne low-coherence interferometry demonstrates in vivo that the outer hair cell-driven reticular lamina vibration occurs after, not before, the basilar membrane vibration. The reticular lamina and basilar membrane move in opposite directions at low frequencies and in phase near the best frequency. This experimental finding conflicts with commonly accepted cochlear local feedback theory and suggests that outer hair cells enhance hearing sensitivity through a global hydromechanical mechanism.

Twenty-three young healthy Mongolian gerbils of both sexes at age of 4 to 8 weeks (40–80 g) were used in this study.

Measurement of reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibrations

Request a detailed protocol

Animal anesthesia and surgical procedures were the same as described previously (Ren, 2002; Ren et al., 2011; Ren and Nuttall, 2001). Briefly, after about one third of the round window membrane was removed and the opened round window was partially covered with a glass coverslip, the object light from the interferometer was focused on the center of the outer hair cell region of the cochlear partition at the basal turn (Figure 6A). The transverse locations of the basilar membrane and reticular lamina were determined by measuring the backscattered light (carrier) level as a function of the transverse location. The locations of the basilar membrane and reticular lamina were indicated by the two peaks of the backscattered light level (Figure 6B) and confirmed by the distinct magnitude and phase of the cochlear partition vibrations at the two locations (Figure 6C,D). Cochlear partition vibrations were measured as a function of the transverse location at the best frequency (30 kHz) and at different sound levels (0–80 dB SPL).

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

When the object beam of the interferometer was focused on the basilar membrane or the reticular lamina, acoustical tones at different frequencies and levels were delivered to the ear canal. The tone frequency was changed from 1.8 to 40.0 kHz by ~0.2 kHz per step. The magnitude and phase of the cochlear partition vibration were measured using a lock-in amplifier (SR830, Stanford Research System, Inc. Sunnyvale, CA) and recorded on a computer. The best frequency was determined by the peak of the basilar membrane displacement as a function of frequency at 30 dB SPL. For recording time waveforms of the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration, a 10-µs electrical pulse was generated by a dynamic signal analyzer (PXI-4461, National Instruments, Austin, TX) and used to drive an electrostatic speaker (EC1, Tucker-Davis Technologies, Alachua, FL). Displacements of the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibrations were digitized at the rate of 200,000 samples per second and averaged synchronously with stimuli for 100 times. Time waveforms from the same time window were plotted to show the temporal relationship between the reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration (Figure 4). The reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibration were measured in a random order.

Cochlear sensitivity was monitored by continuously recording distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE). The DPOAE at 16 kHz was evoked by two 60 dB SPL tones at 20 and 24 kHz. A cochlea with <5 dB DPOAE decrease was considered sensitive. Postmortem data were collected 10 to 30 min after the animal's death from anesthetic overdose. Stapes vibration was recorded under the same conditions as for the cochlear mechanical measurement.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

1. 1. Ashmore J

   (2008) Cochlear outer hair cell motility

   Physiological Reviews 88:173–210.

   https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00044.2006

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Brownell WE
   2. Bader CR
   3. Bertrand D
   4. de Ribaupierre Y

   (1985) Evoked mechanical responses of isolated cochlear outer hair cells

   Science 227:194–196.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3966153

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Chen F
   2. Zha D
   3. Fridberger A
   4. Zheng J
   5. Choudhury N
   6. Jacques SL
   7. Wang RK
   8. Shi X
   9. Nuttall AL

   (2011) A differentially amplified motion in the ear for near-threshold sound detection

   Nature Neuroscience 14:770–774.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2827

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Cooper NP
   2. Rhode WS

   (1992) Basilar membrane mechanics in the hook region of cat and guinea-pig cochleae: sharp tuning and nonlinearity in the absence of baseline position shifts

   Hearing Research 63:163–190.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(92)90083-Y

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Cooper NP
   2. Vavakou A
   3. van der Heijden M

   (2018) Vibration hotspots reveal longitudinal funneling of sound-evoked motion in the mammalian cochlea

   Nature Communications 9:3054.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05483-z

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Corey DP
   2. Hudspeth AJ

   (1979) Ionic basis of the receptor potential in a vertebrate hair cell

   Nature 281:675–677.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/281675a0

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Dallos P
   2. Santos-Sacchi J
   3. Flock A

   (1982) Intracellular recordings from cochlear outer hair cells

   Science 218:582–584.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7123260

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Dallos P
   2. Wu X
   3. Cheatham MA
   4. Gao J
   5. Zheng J
   6. Anderson CT
   7. Jia S
   8. Wang X
   9. Cheng WH
   10. Sengupta S
   11. He DZ
   12. Zuo J

   (2008) Prestin-based outer hair cell motility is necessary for mammalian cochlear amplification

   Neuron 58:333–339.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.02.028

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Davis H

   (1983) An active process in cochlear mechanics

   Hearing Research 9:79–90.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(83)90136-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. de Boer E

    (1995a) The "inverse problem" solved for a three-dimensional model of the cochlea. I. Analysis

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98:896–903.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.413515

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. de Boer E

    (1995b) On equivalence of locally active models of the cochlea

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 98:1400–1409.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.414407

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Delgutte B

    (1990) Two-tone rate suppression in auditory-nerve fibers: dependence on suppressor frequency and level

    Hearing Research 49:225–246.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(90)90106-Y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Dong W
    2. Cooper NP

    (2006) An experimental study into the acousto-mechanical effects of invading the cochlea

    Journal of The Royal Society Interface 3:561–571.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Dong W
    2. Olson ES

    (2013) Detection of cochlear amplification and its activation

    Biophysical Journal 105:1067–1078.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2013.06.049

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Fettiplace R
    2. Hackney CM

    (2006) The sensory and motor roles of auditory hair cells

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7:19–29.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1828

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Fisher JA
    2. Nin F
    3. Reichenbach T
    4. Uthaiah RC
    5. Hudspeth AJ

    (2012) The spatial pattern of cochlear amplification

    Neuron 76:989–997.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Gao SS
    2. Wang R
    3. Raphael PD
    4. Moayedi Y
    5. Groves AK
    6. Zuo J
    7. Applegate BE
    8. Oghalai JS

    (2014) Vibration of the organ of Corti within the cochlear apex in mice

    Journal of Neurophysiology 112:1192–1204.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00306.2014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Ghaffari R
    2. Aranyosi AJ
    3. Freeman DM

    (2007) Longitudinally propagating traveling waves of the mammalian tectorial membrane

    PNAS 104:16510–16515.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703665104

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Ghaffari R
    2. Aranyosi AJ
    3. Richardson GP
    4. Freeman DM

    (2010) Tectorial membrane travelling waves underlie abnormal hearing in Tectb mutant mice

    Nature Communications 1:96.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1094

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Gold T

    (1948) Hearing. II. the physical basis of the action of the cochlea

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 135:492–498.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1948.0025

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Gummer AW
    2. Hemmert W
    3. Zenner HP

    (1996) Resonant tectorial membrane motion in the inner ear: its crucial role in frequency tuning

    PNAS 93:8727–8732.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.16.8727

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Hakizimana P
    2. Brownell WE
    3. Jacob S
    4. Fridberger A

    (2012) Sound-induced length changes in outer hair cell stereocilia

    Nature Communications 3:1094.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2100

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Hong SS
    2. Freeman DM

    (2006) Doppler optical coherence microscopy for studies of cochlear mechanics

    Journal of Biomedical Optics 11:054014.

    https://doi.org/10.1117/1.2358702

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hudspeth AJ

    (2014) Integrating the active process of hair cells with cochlear function

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 15:600–614.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3786

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Iwasa KH

    (2017) Negative membrane capacitance of outer hair cells: electromechanical coupling near resonance

    Scientific Reports 7:12118.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12411-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Johnson SL
    2. Beurg M
    3. Marcotti W
    4. Fettiplace R

    (2011) Prestin-driven cochlear amplification is not limited by the outer hair cell membrane time constant

    Neuron 70:1143–1154.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.04.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Karavitaki KD
    2. Mountain DC

    (2007) Evidence for outer hair cell driven oscillatory fluid flow in the tunnel of corti

    Biophysical Journal 92:3284–3293.

    https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.106.084087

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Khanna SM
    2. Johnson GW
    3. Jacobs J

    (1986) Homodyne interferometer for basilar membrane vibration measurements. II. hardware and techniques

    Hearing Research 23:27–36.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(86)90173-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Lee HY
    2. Raphael PD
    3. Park J
    4. Ellerbee AK
    5. Applegate BE
    6. Oghalai JS

    (2015) Noninvasive in vivo imaging reveals differences between tectorial membrane and basilar membrane traveling waves in the mouse cochlea

    PNAS 112:3128–3133.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500038112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Lee HY
    2. Raphael PD
    3. Xia A
    4. Kim J
    5. Grillet N
    6. Applegate BE
    7. Ellerbee Bowden AK
    8. Oghalai JS

    (2016) Two-Dimensional cochlear micromechanics measured in vivo demonstrate radial tuning within the mouse organ of corti

    Journal of Neuroscience 36:8160–8173.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1157-16.2016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Liberman MC
    2. Gao J
    3. He DZ
    4. Wu X
    5. Jia S
    6. Zuo J

    (2002) Prestin is required for electromotility of the outer hair cell and for the cochlear amplifier

    Nature 419:300–304.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01059

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Liu Y
    2. Gracewski SM
    3. Nam JH

    (2017) Two passive mechanical conditions modulate power generation by the outer hair cells

    PLoS Computational Biology 13:e1005701.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005701

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Liu YW
    2. Neely ST

    (2009) Outer hair cell electromechanical properties in a nonlinear piezoelectric model

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126:751–761.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3158919

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Lukashkin AN
    2. Bashtanov ME
    3. Russell IJ

    (2005) A self-mixing laser-diode interferometer for measuring basilar membrane vibrations without opening the cochlea

    Journal of Neuroscience Methods 148:122–129.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.04.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Mammano F
    2. Ashmore JF

    (1993) Reverse transduction measured in the isolated cochlea by laser Michelson interferometry

    Nature 365:838–841.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/365838a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Meaud J
    2. Grosh K

    (2012) Response to a pure tone in a nonlinear mechanical-electrical-acoustical model of the cochlea

    Biophysical Journal 102:1237–1246.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2012.02.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Mellado Lagarde MM
    2. Drexl M
    3. Lukashkin AN
    4. Zuo J
    5. Russell IJ

    (2008) Prestin's role in cochlear frequency tuning and transmission of mechanical responses to neural excitation

    Current Biology 18:200–202.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Motallebzadeh H
    2. Soons JAM
    3. Puria S

    (2018) Cochlear amplification and tuning depend on the cellular arrangement within the organ of Corti

    PNAS 115:5762–5767.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720979115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Müller M

    (1996) The cochlear place-frequency map of the adult and developing Mongolian gerbil

    Hearing Research 94:148–156.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(95)00230-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Nam H
    2. Guinan JJ

    (2017) Non-tip auditory-nerve responses that are suppressed by low-frequency bias tones originate from reticular lamina motion

    Hearing Research 358:1–9.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.12.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Ni G
    2. Elliott SJ
    3. Baumgart J

    (2016) Finite-element model of the active organ of Corti

    Journal of the Royal Society Interface 13:20150913.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0913

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Nilsen KE
    2. Russell IJ

    (1999) Timing of cochlear feedback: spatial and temporal representation of a tone across the basilar membrane

    Nature Neuroscience 2:642–648.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/10197

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Nowotny M
    2. Gummer AW

    (2006) Nanomechanics of the subtectorial space caused by electromechanics of cochlear outer hair cells

    PNAS 103:2120–2125.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0511125103

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Nuttall AL
    2. Dolan DF
    3. Avinash G

    (1991) Laser doppler velocimetry of basilar membrane vibration

    Hearing Research 51:203–213.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(91)90037-A

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Ramamoorthy S
    2. Deo NV
    3. Grosh K

    (2007) A mechano-electro-acoustical model for the cochlea: response to acoustic stimuli

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121:2758–2773.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2713725

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Ramamoorthy S
    2. Zhang Y
    3. Petrie T
    4. Fridberger A
    5. Ren T
    6. Wang R
    7. Jacques SL
    8. Nuttall AL

    (2016) Minimally invasive surgical method to detect sound processing in the cochlear apex by optical coherence tomography

    Journal of Biomedical Optics 21:25003.

    https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.21.2.025003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Recio-Spinoso A
    2. Oghalai JS

    (2017) Mechanical tuning and amplification within the apex of the guinea pig cochlea

    The Journal of Physiology 595:4549–4561.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/JP273881

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Reichenbach T
    2. Hudspeth AJ

    (2014) The physics of hearing: fluid mechanics and the active process of the inner ear

    Reports on Progress in Physics 77:076601.

    https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/77/7/076601

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Ren T
    2. He W
    3. Barr-Gillespie PG

    (2016a) Reverse transduction measured in the living cochlea by low-coherence heterodyne interferometry

    Nature Communications 7:10282.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10282

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Ren T
    2. He W
    3. Kemp D

    (2016b) Reticular lamina and basilar membrane vibrations in living mouse cochleae

    PNAS 113:9910–9915.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607428113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Ren T
    2. He W
    3. Gillespie PG

    (2011) Measurement of cochlear power gain in the sensitive gerbil ear

    Nature Communications 2:216.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1226

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Ren T
    2. Nuttall AL

    (2001) Basilar membrane vibration in the basal turn of the sensitive gerbil cochlea

    Hearing Research 151:48–60.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(00)00211-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Ren T

    (2002) Longitudinal pattern of basilar membrane vibration in the sensitive cochlea

    PNAS 99:17101–17106.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.262663699

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Ren T

    (2004) Reverse propagation of sound in the gerbil cochlea

    Nature Neuroscience 7:333–334.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1216

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Rhode WS
    2. Cooper NP

    (1996)

    Nonlinear mechanics in the apical turn of the Chinchilla cochlea in vivo

    Auditory Neuroscience 3:101–121.

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Rhode WS

    (1971) Observations of the vibration of the basilar membrane in squirrel monkeys using the Mössbauer technique

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49:1218–1231.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912485

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Robles L
    2. Ruggero MA

    (2001) Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea

    Physiological Reviews 81:1305–1352.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.2001.81.3.1305

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Ruggero MA
    2. Rich NC

    (1991) Application of a commercially-manufactured Doppler-shift laser velocimeter to the measurement of basilar-membrane vibration

    Hearing Research 51:215–230.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(91)90038-B

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Ruggero MA
    2. Robles L
    3. Rich NC

    (1992) Two-tone suppression in the basilar membrane of the cochlea: mechanical basis of auditory-nerve rate suppression

    Journal of Neurophysiology 68:1087–1099.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1992.68.4.1087

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Russell IJ
    2. Legan PK
    3. Lukashkina VA
    4. Lukashkin AN
    5. Goodyear RJ
    6. Richardson GP

    (2007) Sharpened cochlear tuning in a mouse with a genetically modified tectorial membrane

    Nature Neuroscience 10:215–223.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1828

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Russell IJ
    2. Nilsen KE

    (1997) The location of the cochlear amplifier: spatial representation of a single tone on the guinea pig basilar membrane

    PNAS 94:2660–2664.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.6.2660

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Russell IJ
    2. Sellick PM

    (1983) Low-frequency characteristics of intracellularly recorded receptor potentials in guinea-pig cochlear hair cells

    The Journal of Physiology 338:179–206.

    https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1983.sp014668

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Santos-Sacchi J
    2. Tan W

    (2018) The frequency response of outer hair cell Voltage-Dependent motility is limited by kinetics of prestin

    The Journal of Neuroscience 38:0425-18–0425506.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0425-18.2018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Santos-Sacchi J

    (1989) Asymmetry in voltage-dependent movements of isolated outer hair cells from the organ of Corti

    The Journal of Neuroscience 9:2954–2962.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.09-08-02954.1989

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Stankovic KM
    2. Guinan JJ

    (1999) Medial efferent effects on auditory-nerve responses to tail-frequency tones. I. rate reduction

    The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106:857–869.

    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.427102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. van der Heijden M
    2. Versteegh CP

    (2015) Energy flux in the cochlea: evidence against power amplification of the traveling wave

    Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 16:581–597.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-015-0529-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Wang Y
    2. Steele CR
    3. Puria S

    (2016) Cochlear Outer-Hair-Cell power generation and viscous fluid loss

    Scientific Reports 6:19475.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19475

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Zagadou BF
    2. Mountain DC

    (2012) Analysis of the cochlear amplifier fluid pump hypothesis

    Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 13:185–197.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-011-0308-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Zheng J
    2. Shen W
    3. He DZ
    4. Long KB
    5. Madison LD
    6. Dallos P

    (2000) Prestin is the motor protein of cochlear outer hair cells

    Nature 405:149–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35012009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Wenxuan He

   Oregon Hearing Research Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. David Kemp

   University College London Ear Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Validation, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Tianying Ren

   Oregon Hearing Research Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   rent@ohsu.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2533-7203

• 1,805

  views

• 255

  downloads

• 62

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.