↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Vibration hotspots reveal longitudinal funneling of sound-evoked motion in the mammalian cochlea
Published in
Nature Communications, August 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41467-018-05483-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigel P. Cooper, Anna Vavakou, Marcel van der Heijden

Abstract

The micromechanical mechanisms that underpin tuning and dynamic range compression in the mammalian inner ear are fundamental to hearing, but poorly understood. Here, we present new, high-resolution optical measurements that directly map sound-evoked vibrations on to anatomical structures in the intact, living gerbil cochlea. The largest vibrations occur in a tightly delineated hotspot centering near the interface between the Deiters' and outer hair cells. Hotspot vibrations are less sharply tuned, but more nonlinear, than basilar membrane vibrations, and behave non-monotonically (exhibiting hyper-compression) near their characteristic frequency. Amplitude and phase differences between hotspot and basilar membrane responses depend on both frequency and measurement angle, and indicate that hotspot vibrations involve longitudinal motion. We hypothesize that structural coupling between the Deiters' and outer hair cells funnels sound-evoked motion into the hotspot region, under the control of the outer hair cells, to optimize cochlear tuning and compression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 7 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 11 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 12%
Neuroscience 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 January 2019.
All research outputs
#16,522,185
of 24,309,087 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#46,435
of 51,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,157
of 334,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#1,221
of 1,336 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,309,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 51,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,799 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,336 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.