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
REVIEW PAPER
HOW DO MIDDLE EAR MUSCLES PROTECT THE COCHLEA?
RECONSIDERATION OF THE INTRALABYRINTHINE
PRESSURE THEORY
1
Research School of Biology, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian National
University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
Publication date: 2011-06-30
J Hear Sci 2011;1(2):9-23
ABSTRACT
The middle ear muscles are part of a control system for regulating the acoustic input to a supersensitive detector, the cochlea,
preventing overload and damage. Yet there is a long-standing paradox. When Békésy measured sound transmission through
the middle ear of cadavers, he found that acoustic transmission was not affected when the annular ligament was stretched by
pressure. Similarly, reflex activation experiments often show only a few decibels of attenuation, assumed to be due to stiffening of middle ear joints and ligaments. In contrast, psychophysical experiments reveal attenuations of 30 dB or more when
the middle ear muscles are voluntarily contracted. How can the difference be explained? This synthesis paper shows how the
paradox can be resolved by reconsidering a theory put forward by Gellé in the 19th century. According to Gellé’s intralabyrinthine pressure theory, which has long been dismissed, the purpose of the middle ear muscles is to press the stapes inwards and
raise the hydraulic pressure in the labyrinthine fluids, thereby regulating cochlear sensitivity. The focus of this review is to revisit the theory and show how it can explain a range of audiological findings. The theory is updated and the hypothesis made
that static pressure in the cochlear fluids is sensed by the outer hair cells, which are in continuous hydraulic connection with
the stapes. It is this factor which reduces the gain of the cochlear amplifier and provides rapid and effective overload protection. The case is made that the intralabyrinthine pressure theory deserves renewed attention.
REFERENCES (99)
1.
Fletcher NH: Acoustic Systems in Biology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992.
2.
Rosowski JJ: External and middle ear function. In: Fuchs PA (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Auditory Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010; 49–91.
3.
Kemp DT: Otoacoustic emissions: concepts and origins. In: Manley GA, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds.), Active Processes and Otoacoustic Emissions. New York: Springer, 2008; 1–38.
4.
Jepsen O: Middle-ear muscle reflexes in man. In: Jerger J (ed.), Modern Developments in Audiology. New York: Academic Press, 1963; 193–239.
5.
Borg E: Acoustic middle ear reflexes: a sensory-control system. Acta Oto-Laryngol, 1972; Suppl. 304: 1–34.
6.
Møller AR: Function of the middle ear. In: Keidel WD, Neff WD (eds.), Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1974; 491–548.
7.
Møller AR: The acoustic middle ear muscle reflex. In: Keidel WD, Neff WD (eds.), Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1974; 519–48.
9.
Zemlin WR: Speech and Hearing Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
10.
Wever EG, Lawrence M: Physiological Acoustics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954.
11.
Borg E, Counter SA, Rösler G: Theories of middle-ear muscle function. In: Silman S (ed.), The Acoustic Reflex: Basic Principles and Clinical Applications. New York: Academic Press, 1984; 63–99.
12.
Møller AR: An experimental study of the acoustic impedance of the middle ear and its transmission properties. Acta Otolaryngol, 1965; 60: 129–49.
13.
Nuttall AL: Tympanic muscle effects on middle-ear transfer characteristic. J Acoust Soc Am, 1974; 56: 1239–47.
14.
Burns EM, Harrison WA, Bulen JC, Keefe DH: Voluntary contraction of middle ear muscles: effects on input impedance, energy reflectance and spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res, 1993; 67: 117–27.
15.
Zwislocki JJ: Auditory Sound Transmission: An Autobiographical Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002.
16.
Gellé M: Les lésions nerveuses dans la surdité. Transactions, International Congress of Medicine, 1881; 3: 370–72.
17.
Gellé M: Valeur de l’épreuve des pressions centripètes [Consideration of the test of centripetal pressure]. Annales des Maladies de l’Oreille, du Larynx, du Nez et du Pharynx, 1885; 11: 63–70 (in French).
18.
Khanna SM, Tonndorf J: The vibratory pattern of the round window in cats. J Acoust Soc Am, 1971; 50: 1475–83.
19.
Ashmore JF, Avan P, Brownell WE et al: The remarkable cochlear amplifier. Hear Res, 2010; 266: 1–17.
20.
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.
21.
Ren T, Nuttall AL: Cochlear compression wave: an implication of the Allen-Fahey experiment (L). J Acoust Soc Am, 2006; 119: 1940–42.
22.
Andersen HC, Hansen CC, Neergaard EB: Experimental studies on sound transmission in the human ear. Acta Otolaryngol, 1962; 54: 511–20.
23.
Neergaard EB, Andersen HC, Hansen CC, Jepsen O: Experimental studies on sound transmission in the human ear. III. Influence of the stapedius and tensor tympani muscles. Acta Oto-Laryngol, 1963; Suppl. 188: 280–86.
24.
Metz O: The acoustic impedance measured on normal and pathological ears. Acta Otolaryngol, 1946; Suppl. 63: 1–254.
25.
Lynch TJ, Nedzelnitsky V, Peake WT: Input impedance of the cochlea in cat. J Acoust Soc Am, 1982; 72: 108–30.
26.
Tonndorf J, Khanna SM: Some properties of sound transmission in the middle and outer ears of cats. J Acoust Soc Am, 1966; 41: 513–21.
27.
Klockhoff I, Anggard G, Anggard L: Recording of cranio-labyrinthine pressure transmission in man by acoustic impedance method. Acta Otolaryngol, 1966; 61: 361–70.
28.
Lutman ME, Martin AM: Development of an electroacoustic analogue model of the middle ear and acoustic reflex. J Sound Vibration, 1979; 64: 133–57.
29.
Smith HD: Audiometric effects of voluntary contraction of the tensor tympani muscles. Arch Otolaryngol, 1943; 38: 369–72.
30.
Reger SN: Effect of middle ear muscle action on certain psychophysical measurements. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 1960; 69: 1179–98.
31.
Nuttall AL: Measurements of the guinea-pig middle-ear transfer characteristic. J Acoust Soc Am, 1974; 56: 1231–47.
32.
Rasmussen H: Studies on the effect upon the hearing through air conduction brought about by variations of the pressure in the auditory meatus. Acta Otolaryngol, 1946; 34: 415–24.
33.
Pang XD, Peake WT: How do contractions of the stapedius muscle alter the acoustic properties of the ear? In: Allen JB, Hall JL, Hubbard AE et al. (eds), Peripheral Auditory Mechanisms. New York: Springer, 1986; 36–43.
34.
Huizing EH: Bone conduction: the influence of the middle ear. Acta Oto-Laryngol, 1960; Suppl. 155: 1–99.
35.
Kemp DT: The evoked cochlear mechanical response and the auditory microstructure: evidence for a new element in cochlear mechanics. Scand Audiol, 1979; Suppl. 9: 35–47.
37.
Bell A: Circadian and menstrual rhythms of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions from human ears. Hear Res, 1992; 58: 91–100.
38.
Whitehead ML: Slow variations of the amplitude and frequency of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res, 1991; 53: 269–80.
39.
Marchbanks RJ, Reid A: Cochlear and cerebrospinal fluid pressure: their inter-relationship and control mechanisms. Br J Audiol, 1990; 24: 179–87.
40.
Saxena RK, Tandon PN, Sinha A, Kacker SK: Auditory functions in raised intracranial pressure. Acta Otolaryngol, 1969; 68: 402–10.
41.
John PY, Kacker SY, Tandon PN: Bekesy audiometry in evaluation of hearing in cases of raised intracranial pressure. Acta Otolaryngol, 1979; 87: 441–44.
42.
Macrae JH: Effects of body position on the auditory system. J Speech Hear Res, 1972; 15: 330–39.
43.
Büki B, Chomicki A, Dordain M et al: Middle-ear influence on otoacoustic emissions. II: contributions of posture and intracranial pressure. Hear Res, 2000; 140: 202–11.
44.
de Kleine E, Wit HP: The behavior of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions during and after postural changes. J Acoust Soc Am, 2000; 107: 3308–16.
45.
Hüttenbrink KB: The mechanics of the middle-ear at static air pressures. Acta Oto-Laryngol, 1988; Suppl. 451: 1–35.
46.
Densert O, Ivarsson A, Pedersen K: The influence of perilymphatic pressure on the displacement of the tympanic membrane. Acta Otolaryngol, 1977; 84: 220–26.
47.
Ivarsson A, Pedersen K: Volume-pressure properties of round and oval windows. Acta Otolaryngol, 1977; 84: 38–43.
48.
van den Berge H, Wirtz P: Detailed morphology of the tensor tympani muscle of the rat. J Anat, 1989; 164: 215–28.
49.
Gopen Q, Rosowski JJ, Merchant SN: Anatomy of the normal human cochlear aqueduct with functional implications. Hear Res, 1997; 107: 9–22.
50.
Waltner JG: Barrier membrane of the cochlear aqueduct. Arch Otolaryngol, 1948; 47: 656–69.
51.
Wit HP, Thalen EO, Albers FMJ: Dynamics of inner ear pressure release, measured with a double-barreled micropipette in the guinea pig. Hear Res, 1999; 132: 131–39.
52.
Loeb M, Riopelle AJ: Influence of loud contralateral stimulation on the threshold and perceived loudness of low-frequency tones. J Acoust Soc Am, 1960; 32: 602–10.
53.
Rosowski JJ, Ravicz ME, Songer JE: Structures that contribute to middle-ear admittance in chinchilla. J Comp Physiol A, 2006; 192: 1287–311.
54.
Zurek PM: Spontaneous narrowband acoustic signals emitted by human ears. J Acoust Soc Am, 1981; 69: 514–23.
55.
Voss SE, Adegoke MF, Horton NJ et al: Posture systematically alters ear-canal reflectance and DPOAE properties. Hear Res, 2010; 263: 43–51.
56.
Lempert J, Wever EG, Lawrence M, Meltzer PE: Perilymph: its relation to the improvement of hearing which follows fenestration of the vestibular labyrinth in clinical otosclerosis. Arch Otolaryngol, 1949; 50: 377–87.
57.
McCabe BF, Wolsk D: Experimental inner ear pressure changes. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 1961; 70: 541–55.
59.
Corey VB: Change in pitch of sustained musical note by clenching of the jaws of the observer. J Acoust Soc Am, 1950; 22: 640.
60.
Rowan D, Kapadia S, Lutman ME: Does static ear canal pressure influence pure tone pitch perception? Acta Otolaryngol, 2004; 124: 286–89.
61.
Büki B, Avan P, Lemaire JJ et al: Otoacoustic emissions: a new tool for monitoring intracranial pressure changes through stapes displacements. Hear Res, 1996; 94: 125–39.
62.
Rasmussen H: Studies on the effect on the air conduction and bone conduction from changes in the meatal pressure in normal subjects and otosclerotic patients. Acta Oto-Laryngol, 1948; Suppl. 74: 54–64.
63.
Dankbaar WA: The diagnotistic value of Gellé’s test. Acta Otolaryngol, 1970; 69: 266–72.
64.
Legouix J-P: Changes in the cochlear microphonic of the guinea pig produced by mechanical factors in the inner ear. J Acoust Soc Am, 1962; 34: 1504–8.
65.
Avan P, Loth D, Menguy C, Teyssou M: Hypothetical roles of middle ear muscles in the guinea-pig. Hear Res, 1992; 59: 59–69.
66.
Wilson JP, Sutton GJ: Acoustic correlates of tonal tinnitus. In: Evered D, Lawrenson G (eds.), Tinnitus. London: Pitman, 1981; 82–107.
67.
Veuillet E, Collet L, Morgon A: Differential effects of ear-canal pressure and contralateral acoustic stimulation on evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans. Hear Res, 1992; 61: 47–55.
68.
van Dijk P: The effect of static ear canal pressure on human spontaneous otoacoustic emissions: spectral width as a measure of the intra-cochlear oscillation amplitude. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2011; 12: 13–28.
69.
Nobili R, Vetesnik A, Turicchia L, Mammano F: Otoacoustic emissions from residual oscillations of the cochlear basilar membrane in a human ear model. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2003; 4: 478–94.
70.
Bell JA: The Underwater Piano: A Resonance Theory of Cochlear Mechanics. PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, 2005. http://hdl.handle.net/1885/493....
71.
Avan P, Büki B, Maat B et al: Middle ear influence on otoacoustic emissions. I. Noninvasive investigation of the human transmission apparatus and comparison with model results. Hear Res, 2000; 140: 189–201.
72.
Deeter R, Abel R, Calandruccio L, Dhar S: Contralateral acoustic stimulation alters the magnitude and phase of distortion product otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am, 2009; 126: 2413–24.
73.
Rabinowitz WM, Widin GP: Interaction of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions and external sounds. J Acoust Soc Am, 1984; 76: 1713–20.
74.
Guinan JJ, Backus BC, Lilaonitkul W, Aharonson V: Medial olivocochlear efferent reflex in humans: otoacoustic emission (OAE) measurement issues and the advantages of stimulus frequency OAEs. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2003; 4: 521–40.
75.
Goodman SS, Keefe DH: Simultaneous measurement of noiseactivated middle-ear muscle reflex and stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2006; 7: 125–39.
76.
Zhao W, Dhar S: Fast and slow effects of medial olivocochlear efferent activity in humans. PLoS One, 2011; 6: e18725.
77.
Jones SEM, Mason MJ, Sunkaraneni VS, Baguley DM: The effect of auditory stimulation on the tensor tympani in patients following stapedectomy. Acta Otolaryngol, 2008; 128: 250–54.
78.
de Kleine E, Wit HP, Avan P, van Dijk P: The behavior of evoked otoacoustic emissions during and after postural changes. J Acoust Soc Am, 2001; 110: 973–80.
79.
Howell P: Are two muscles needed for the normal functioning of the mammalian middle ear? Acta Otolaryngol, 1984; 98: 204–7.
81.
Simmons FB: Middle ear muscle activity at moderate sound levels. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 1959; 68: 1126–43.
82.
Sesterhenn G, Breuninger H: The acoustic reflex at low sensation levels. Audiology, 1976; 15: 523–33.
83.
Møller AR: Neurophysiological basis of the acoustic middleear reflex. In: Silman S (ed.), The Acoustic Reflex. New York: Academic, 1984; 1–34.
84.
Dallos PJ: Dynamics of the acoustic reflex: phenomenological aspects. J Acoust Soc Am, 1964; 36: 2175–83.
85.
Silman S, Popelka GR, Gelfand SA: Effect of sensorineural hearing loss on acoustic stapedius reflex growth functions. J Acoust Soc Am, 1978; 64: 1406–11.
86.
Loth D, Avan P, Menguy C, Teyssou M: Crossed acoustic middle-ear muscle reflex and attenuation of low-level pure tones in man. Acta Acustica, 1994; 2: 149–55.
87.
Ward WD: Further observations on contralateral remote masking and related phenomena. J Acoust Soc Am, 1967; 42: 593–600.
88.
Keidser G, Katsch R, Dillon H, Grant F: Relative loudness perception of low and high frequency sounds in the open and occluded ear. J Acoust Soc Am, 2000; 107: 3351–57.
89.
Whitehead ML, Baker RJ, Wilson JP: Drifts in the frequency and amplitude of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs) during recording: an efferent effect? Br J Audiol, 1989; 23: 149–50.
90.
Robinson PM, Haughton PM: Modification of evoked otoacoustic emissions by changes in pressure in the external ear. Br J Audiol, 1991; 25: 131–33.
92.
Horner KC: Functional changes associated with experimentally induced endolymphatic hydrops. Hear Res, 1993; 68: 1–18.
93.
Franz P, Hamzavi JS, Schneider B, Ehrenberger K: Do middle ear muscles trigger attacks of Ménière’s disease? Acta Otolaryngol, 2003; 123: 133–37.
94.
Tonndorf J: The mechanism of hearing loss in early cases of endolymphatic hydrops. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 1957; 66: 766–84.
95.
Avan P, Giraudet F, Chauveau B, Gilain L, Mom T: Unstable distortion-product otoacoustic emission phase in Menière’s disease. Hear Res, 2011; 277: 88–95.
96.
Hallberg OE: Sudden deafness of obscure origin. The Laryngoscope, 1956; 66: 1237–67.
97.
Simmons FB: Theory of membrane breaks in sudden hearing loss. Arch Otolaryngol, 1968; 88: 41–48.
98.
Virtanen H: Middle-ear pressure and eustachian tube function. Arch Otolaryngol, 1982; 108: 766–68.
99.
Kirikae I: An experimental study on the fundamental mechanism of bone conduction. Acta Otolaryngol, 1959; Suppl. 145: 1–111.
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.
