A New Paradigm in Hearing

[Reinier]

Hi all,

http://www.a3ccm-apmas-eakoh.be/welcome.htm
http://www.a3ccm-apmas-eakoh.be/index.htm

I found this interesting. Does anyone know if there is more recent information?
It explains the origin of hyperacusis in a different way. It also explains cochlear amplification in a different way.
I haven't read all of it yet, but I am going to.

Is there already a thread on this forum regarding this theory?
I couldn't find it.

 

[Onnie]

I read about this, there is a discussion about it on the forum of the dutch hearing association.

Did you also find the blog written by the husband of a woman named engelien? He explaines a lot about this. I also found it very interesting but i have no opinion about the content since i am not a medical doctor. Could he be right?

I understand that this theory by Pim heerens is very controversial. Ents trying to swipe it under the carpet because it is not in line with their own theories.

 

[Nick Pyzik]

Hi all,

http://www.a3ccm-apmas-eakoh.be/welcome.htm
http://www.a3ccm-apmas-eakoh.be/index.htm

I found this interesting. Does anyone know if there is more recent information?
It explains the origin of hyperacusis in a different way. It also explains cochlear amplification in a different way.
I haven't read all of it yet, but I am going to.

Is there already a thread on this forum regarding this theory?
I couldn't find it.

Could you summarize his theory for me Reinier?

 

[Reinier]

Did you also find the blog written by the husband of a woman named engelien? He explaines a lot about this. I also found it very interesting but i have no opinion about the content since i am not a medical doctor. Could he be right?

Yes I read the blog and found it interesting too. It was a poignant story the husband was telling.

Could you summarize his theory for me Reinier?

I understand that this theory by Pim heerens is very controversial. Ents trying to swipe it under the carpet because it is not in line with their own theories.

Yesterday I started to read the book/document I downloaded. Most of it is physics and I am an electronics technician.
Why I was interested in the first instance is that I never understood how the cochlea was able to discriminate frequencies. How can hair-cells at the apex of the cochlea detect the high frequencies and not the low frequencies. I think I can understand the theory in this book though.
If I understand correctly there cannot be a standing wave in the cochlea for frequencies we hear. Even the high frequency of 20 kHz already has a wavelength a lot longer than the cochlea can accommodate. Let alone the low frequency of 20 Hz. This part of the document made me interested.
Also an interesting theory about the amplification of the cochlea (outer hair cells). According to this theory the amplification is not due to outer hair-cells.
Also a different view on how we can develop hyperacusis. I need to find this part again, but I read that hyperacusis is able to manifest itself because the oval and round windows are stretched after noise trauma. I instantly thought about Dr. Silverstein who is doing surgery, reinforcing round and oval windows and is apparently successful.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25456168
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/thread...cement-for-the-treatment-of-hyperacusis.7252/
This also made me think about reading in a document that infra-red tightens the oval and round windows. I am still trying to find the document. This can be an explanation why LLLT can sometimes improve hyperacusis.

 

[Reinier]

I read the book "Applying physics makes auditory sense : a new paradigm in hearing".
The English version can be downloaded here:
http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/196752
under "Full text".

 

[Nick Pyzik]

Yes I read the blog and found it interesting too. It was a poignant story the husband was telling.



Yesterday I started to read the book/document I downloaded. Most of it is physics and I am an electronics technician.
Why I was interested in the first instance is that I never understood how the cochlea was able to discriminate frequencies. How can hair-cells at the apex of the cochlea detect the high frequencies and not the low frequencies. I think I can understand the theory in this book though.
If I understand correctly there cannot be a standing wave in the cochlea for frequencies we hear. Even the high frequency of 20 kHz already has a wavelength a lot longer than the cochlea can accommodate. Let alone the low frequency of 20 Hz. This part of the document made me interested.
Also an interesting theory about the amplification of the cochlea (outer hair cells). According to this theory the amplification is not due to outer hair-cells.
Also a different view on how we can develop hyperacusis. I need to find this part again, but I read that hyperacusis is able to manifest itself because the oval and round windows are stretched after noise trauma. I instantly thought about Dr. Silverstein who is doing surgery, reinforcing round and oval windows and is apparently successful.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25456168
https://www.tinnitustalk.com/thread...cement-for-the-treatment-of-hyperacusis.7252/
This also made me think about reading in a document that infra-red tightens the oval and round windows. I am still trying to find the document. This can be an explanation why LLLT can sometimes improve hyperacusis.

Very interesting. Thanks for summarizing all that Reinier.

I'd like to say though that low frequency sound waves travel much farther in length than high frequency waves which goes to show why the lower frequency hair cells are deeper inside the curled up cochlea.

I'd also like to mention something about the Outer Hair Cells and follow up on his theory about how they aren't the ones who amplify the sound. I believe it to be the auditory nerve fibers which amplify the sound. It makes so much sense. I'm not sure if it's the afferent or efferent nerve but I have to look more into how each nerve works.

I have read a lot of articles explaining that hyperacusis forms from the lost connection of nerve fibers to hair cells while the brain has not re-adjusted its gain knob in time therefore frequencies picked up by that specific hair cell (while there are still nerve fibers attached to it) will be much more intense to the brain since it doesn't have the nerves that once helped process those frequencies for the brain from the hair cell. I think the nerve fibers of the auditory nerve not only act as an amplifier for frequencies, but also control the gain knob in the brain, and the emotions that follow the loss of them too.

It's explained well on this website.

http://hyperacusisfocus.org/innerear/

 

[Reinier]

I'd like to say though that low frequency sound waves travel much farther in length than high frequency waves which goes to show why the lower frequency hair cells are deeper inside the curled up cochlea.

The wavelength for low frequencies is longer. They will not travel further. At least not in a cochlea that is a few centimetres long. The cochlea is getting narrower towards the end though. This is why the "output" is higher and hence we have sensitive hearing for lower frequencies. But there is much more to it than what I am typing here. I found the book quite complicated and did not understand all the details. The interesting thing is that there is software available that will confirm the statements/theories in the book. But I assume this is for scientists that understand everything about the theories.
I was able to relate to the principles because long time ago I used to build my own speaker boxes where you needed to calculate ports etc... I read a lot regarding to, standing waves, travelling waves, acoustics, etc... This is why much of what was in this book made sense to me.

I have read a lot of articles explaining that hyperacusis forms from the lost connection of nerve fibers to hair cells while the brain has not re-adjusted its gain knob in time therefore frequencies picked up by that specific hair cell

Could very well be true. I do not doubt this. A lot will be reputable science. It could also be a number of reasons why we have hyperacusis after noise damage.
I always want to understand: Assuming the statements from people that had surgery, reinforcing round and oval window by Dr. Silverstein experience relief from hyperacusis, are true. I can not understand this when so much of our hearing sensitivity is because of the cochlear amplifier. People that had this surgery did not have diminished/less sensitive hearing as far as I am aware. That is something I can not understand.
In the book it is explained how 60dB is gained in the middle ear and why it is unlikely that outer hair-cells are responsible for the amplification. Perhaps it is both: outer hair-cells for increased dynamics/frequency discrimination and inner ear for gain?
I read the book in two days. It is very well possible that I am miss quoting some things, or I am not accurate. (And, for sure, I am not knowledgeable enough). But it would not surprise me if this "new paradigm in hearing" is not something that is far fetched. It made too much sense to me.

In the end we still need stem cell and/or or gen therapies