Basilar membrane motion in relation to two-tone suppression

It is proposed that two-tone suppression of rate responses in auditory-nerve fibres by a low-side suppressor cannot be explained in terms of basilar membrane motion. In a model, the amplitude of the mechanical response, either to the tone at characteristic frequency (CF), or to the CF tone combined with a second, lower frequency tone (a suppressor), is taken as the effective stimulus to inner hair cells (IHC), the voltage response of which is considered responsible for excitatory drive to auditory-nerve fibres. Many empirical mechanical and physiological effects are simulated accurately by the model, particularly phenomena observed in two-tone experiments using low-side suppressor tones, that authors have described as two-tone suppression. It is argued in this paper, however, that such phenomena strictly do not constitute suppression in the cochlear response and provide no explanation for rate suppression in nerve fibres. According to the model presented here and consistent with experimental data, suppression of the spike response to a CF tone in an auditory-nerve fibre by a low-side suppressor cannot be explained in terms of the mechanics of the BM. Conclusions by others that experiments support a mechanical explanation for low-side rate suppression are shown to be questionable. It is concluded that low-side suppression of neural responses is explicable only in terms of a non-mechanical factor derived from the response to the low frequency tone, that depresses responsiveness in fibres at the CF location. Adherence to the model of low-side neural rate suppression depending on reduced net mechanical response of the BM is contrary to experimental evidence; furthermore it overlooks a profound influence additional to synaptic drive, that is implied in the shaping of responses in auditory-nerve fibres.