REVIEW PAPER
THE REMARKABLE FROG EAR: IMPLICATIONS FOR VERTEBRATE HEARING
Andrew Bell 1  
 
More details
Hide details
1
John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Andrew Bell   

Andrew Bell, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia, e-mail: andrew.bell@anu.edu.au
Publication date: 2016-03-31
 
J Hear Sci 2016;6(1):17–30
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Frogs, and related amphibians, are adapted to live in both air and water, and so good hearing in both mediums is required. The structure of the frog ear can therefore provide a useful perspective on how sound is sensed and the physical principles involved in hearing. This broad survey of the literature highlights two noteworthy aspects of the frog ear and brings them together into a single framework. First, the frog ear contains an arrangement of sensing cells which is difficult to understand: although they are meant to detect sound, the cells are hidden away in recesses and further shielded from incoming sound by a number of ‘short-circuits’ in the vibratory pathway. Second, there is the operculum, a moveable plate that fits into the oval window adjacent to the stapes and whose function remains controversial. Both these challenging features can be understood by noting that all sounds carry both pressure and displacement components, and that form and function can be matched by focusing on the pressure component, which to date has been largely overlooked. This paper proposes that the hair cells at the core of the system respond more sensitively to pressure than to displacement. Building on this property, the piston-like operculum, operated by the opercularis muscle, is put forward as a mechanism for adjusting the static hydraulic pressure within the otic capsule, in this way controlling the global sensitivity, or gain, of the sensing cells within. Both these hypotheses have wider implications for understanding hearing in vertebrates.
 
REFERENCES (55)
1.
Capranaca RR. Morphology and physiology of the auditory system. In: Llinas R, Precht W, editors. Frog Neurobiology: A handbook. Berlin: Springer; 1976; p. 551–75.
 
2.
Jaslow AP, Hetherington TE, Lombard RE. Structure and function of the amphibian middle ear. In: Fritszch B, Ryan MJ, Wilczynski W, Hetherington TE, Walkowiak W, editors. Evolution of the Amphibian Auditory System. New York: Wiley; 1988; p. 69–91.
 
3.
Wever EG. The Amphibian Ear. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1985.
 
4.
Mason MJ. Pathways for sound transmission to the inner ear in amphibians. In: Narins PM, Feng AS, Fay RR, Popper AN, editors. Hearing and Sound Communication in Amphibians. New York: Springer; 2006; p. 147–83.
 
5.
Purgue AP. Tympanic sound radiation in the bullfrog Rana catesbeiana. J Comp Physiol A, 1997; 181: 438–45.
 
6.
Boistel R, Aubin T, Cloestens P, Langer M, Gillet B, Josset P et al. Whispering to the deaf: Communication by a frog without external vocal sac or tympanum in noisy environments. PLOS One, 2011; 6: e22080.
 
7.
Arch VS, Simmons DD, Quinones PM, Feng AS, Jiang J, Stuart BL et al. Inner ear morphological correlates of ultrasonic hearing in frogs. Hear Res, 2012; 283: 70–79.
 
8.
Narins PM, Lewis ER, Purgue AP, Bishop PJ, Minter LR, Lawson DP. Functional consequences of a novel middle ear adaptation in the central African frog Petropedetes parkeri (Ranidae). J Exp Biol, 2001; 204: 1223–32.
 
9.
Van Dijk P, Mason MJ, Schoffelen RLM, Narins PM, Meerenderink SWF. Mechanics of the frog ear. Hear Res, 2011; 273: 46–58.
 
10.
Zwislocki JJ. Auditory Sound Transmission: An Autobiographical Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002.
 
11.
Purgue AP, Narins PM. Mechanics of the inner ear of the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana): The contact membranes and the periotic canal. J Comp Physiol A, 2000; 186: 481–88.
 
12.
Schoffelen RLM, Segenhout JM, van Dijk P. Mechanics of the exceptional anuran ear. J Comp Physiol A, 2008; 194: 417–28.
 
13.
Hudspeth AJ, Corey DP. Sensitivity, polarity, and conductance change in the response of vertebrate hair cells to controlled mechanical stimuli. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 1977; 74: 2407–11.
 
14.
Hudspeth AJ, Jacobs R. Stereocilia mediate transduction in vertebrate hair cells. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 1979; 76: 1506–9.
 
15.
Bell A. How do middle ear muscles protect the cochlea? Reconsideration of the intralabyrinthine pressure theory. J Hear Sci, 2011; 1(2): 9–23.
 
16.
Hetherington TE. The effects of body size on the evolution of the amphibian middle ear. In: Webster DB, Fay RR, Popper AN, editors. Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. New York: Springer; 1992; p. 421–37.
 
17.
Hetherington TE. The middle ear muscle of frogs does not modulate tympanic responses to sound. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 95: 2122–25.
 
18.
Abdala C. Maturation of the human cochlear amplifier: distortion product otoacoustic emission suppression tuning curves recorded at low and high primary tone levels. J Acoust Soc Am, 2001; 110: 1465–76.
 
19.
Hetherington T. Comparative anatomy and function of hearing in aquatic amphibians, reptiles, and birds. In: Thewissen JGM, Nummela S, editors. Sensory Evolution on the Threshold: Adaptations in secondarily aquatic vertebrates. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2008; p. 183–209.
 
20.
Bell A. Are outer hair cells pressure sensors? Basis of a SAW model of the cochlear amplifier. In: Gummer AW, editor. Biophysics of the Cochlea: From Molecules to Models. Singapore: World Scientific; 2003; p. 429–31.
 
21.
Bell A. Detection without deflection? A hypothesis for direct sensing of sound pressure by hair cells. J Biosci, 2007; 32: 385–404.
 
22.
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.
 
23.
Wehner R, Gehring W. Zoologie. 22nd ed. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme; 1990.
 
24.
Denny MW. Sound in air and water: listening to the environment. In: Denny MW, editor. Air and Water: The Biology and Physics of Life’s Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1993; p. 190–220.
 
25.
Lewis ER. Appendix: Useful concepts from circuit theory. In: Manley GA, Popper AN, Fay RR, editors. Evolution of the Vertebrate Auditory System. New York: Springer; 2004; p. 367–400.
 
26.
Helmholtz HLFv. The Mechanism of the Ossicles and the Membrana Tympani [translated by J. Hinton]. London: New Sydenham Society; 1874.
 
27.
Békésy Gv. Some similarities in sensory perception of fish and man. In: Cahn PH, editor. Lateral Line Detectors. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1967; p. 417–35.
 
28.
Hudspeth AJ. Mechanical amplification of stimuli by hair cells. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 1997; 7: 480–86.
 
29.
Hudspeth AJ. Integrating the active process of hair cells with cochlear function. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2014; 15: 600–14.
 
30.
Amro RM, Neiman AB. Effect of bidirectional coupling on spontaneous oscillations and sensitivity in a model of hair cells. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys, 2014; 90(5–1): 052704.
 
31.
Marcotti W, Corns LF, Desmonds T, Kirkwood NK, Richardson GP, Kros CJ. Transduction without tip links in cochlear hair cells is mediated by ion channels with permeation properties distinct from those of the mechano-electrical transducer channel. J Neurosci, 2014; 34: 5505–14.
 
32.
Kim KX, Beurg M, Hackney CM, Furness DN, Mahendrasingam S, Fettiplace R. The role of transmembrane channel-like proteins in the operation of hair cell mechanotransducer channels. J Gen Physiol, 2013; 142: 493–505.
 
33.
Fettiplace R, Kim KX. The physiology of mechanoelectrical transduction channels in hearing. Physiol Rev, 2014; 94: 951–86.
 
34.
Wever EG. The ear and hearing in the frog, Rana pipiens. J Morphol, 1973; 141: 461–78.
 
35.
Mason MJ, Segenhout JM, Cobo-Cuan A, Quinones PM, van Dijk P. The frog inner ear: Picture perfect? J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2015; 16: 171–88.
 
36.
Purgue AP, Narins PM. A model for energy flow in the inner ear of the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). J Comp Physiol A, 2000; 186: 489–95.
 
37.
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.
 
38.
Shera CA, Zweig G. An empirical bound on the compressibility of the cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am, 1992; 92: 1382–88.
 
39.
Nummela S, Thewissen JGM. The physics of sound in air and water. In: Thewissen JGM, Nummela S, editors. Sensory Evolution on the Threshold: Adaptations in secondarily aquatic vertebrates. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2008; p. 175–224.
 
40.
Bell A. Hearing: travelling wave or resonance? PLoS Biol, 2004; 2: e337.
 
41.
Bell A. Reptile ears and mammalian ears: Hearing without a travelling wave. J Hear Sci, 2012; 2(3): 14–22.
 
42.
Bell A. The cochlea, surface acoustic waves, and resonance. In: Jabbari E, Kim D-H, Lee LP, Ghaemmaghami A, Khademhosseini A, editors. Handbook of Biomimetics and Bioinspiration. Singapore: World Scientific; 2014; p. 719–41.
 
43.
Hetherington T, Lombard RE. Biophysics of underwater hearing in anuran amphibians. J Exp Biol, 1982; 98: 49–66.
 
44.
Zwartenkot JW, Snik AFM, Kompis M, Stieger C. Gain and maximum output of implantable hearing devices in patients with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss. J Hear Sci, 2012; 2(3): 35–40.
 
45.
Hetherington TE. Physiological features of the opercularis muscle and their effects on vibration sensitivity in the bullfrog Rana catesbeiana. J Exp Biol, 1987; 131: 189–204.
 
46.
Hetherington TE. Effect of the amphibian opercularis muscle on auditory responses. Fortschr Zool, 1989; 35: 356–59.
 
47.
Hetherington TE, Jaslow AP, Lombard RE. Comparative morphology of the amphibian opercularis system: 1. General design features and functional interpretation. J Morphol, 1986; 190: 43–61.
 
48.
Lombard RE, Straughan IR. Functional aspects of anuran middle ear structures. J Exp Biol, 1974; 61: 71–93.
 
49.
Bergevin C, Manley GA, Köppl C. Salient features of otoacoustic emissions are common across tetrapod groups and suggest shared properties of generation mechanisms. Proc Nat Acad Sci, 2015; 112: 3362–67.
 
50.
Bell JA. The Underwater Piano: A Resonance Theory of Cochlear Mechanics. PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra, 2005.
 
51.
Van der Heijden M, Versteegh CPC. Energy flux in the cochlea: Evidence against power amplification of the traveling wave. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2015; 16: 581–97.
 
52.
Bell A. A resonance approach to cochlear mechanics. PLOS One, 2012; 7: e47918.
 
53.
Bell A, Wit HP. The vibrating reed frequency meter: Digital investigation of an early cochlear model. Peer J, 2015; 3: e1333.
 
54.
Bell A. Resonance theories of hearing: A history and a fresh approach. Acoustics Australia, 2004; 32: 108–13.
 
55.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Piotrowska A, Skarzynski PH. Hearing preservation in partial deafness treatment. Med Sci Monit, 2010; 16(11): CR555–62.