Literature DB >> 12784134

Protection from acoustic trauma is not a primary function of the medial olivocochlear efferent system.

E Christopher Kirk1, David W Smith.   

Abstract

The medial olivocochlear (MOC) efferent system is an important component of an active mechanical outer hair cell system in mammals. An extensive neurophysiological literature demonstrates that the MOC system attenuates the response of the cochlea to sound by reducing the gain of the outer hair cell mechanical response to stimulation. Despite a growing understanding of MOC physiology, the biological role of the MOC system in mammalian audition remains uncertain. Some evidence suggests that the MOC system functions in a protective role by acting to reduce receptor damage during intense acoustic exposure. For the MOC system to have evolved as a protective mechanism, however, the inner ears of mammals must be exposed to potentially damaging sources of noise that can elicit MOC-mediated protective effects under natural conditions. In this review, we evaluate the possibility that the MOC system evolved to protect the inner ear from naturally occurring environmental noise. Our survey of nonanthropogenic noise levels shows that while sustained sources of broadband noise are found in nearly all natural acoustic environments, frequency-averaged ambient noise levels in these environments rarely exceed 70 dB SPL. Similarly, sources reporting ambient noise spectra in natural acoustic environments suggest that noise levels within narrow frequency bands are typically low in intensity (<40 dB SPL). Only in rare instances (e.g., during frog choruses) are ambient noise levels sustained at moderately high intensities (~70-90 dB SPL). By contrast, all experiments in which an MOC-mediated protective effect was demonstrated used much higher sound intensities to traumatize the cochlea (100-150 dB SPL). This substantial difference between natural ambient noise levels and the experimental conditions necessary to evoke MOC-mediated protection suggests that even the noisiest natural acoustic environments are not sufficiently intense to have selected for the evolution of the MOC system as a protective mechanism. Furthermore, although relatively intense noise environments do exist in nature, they are insufficiently distributed to account for the widespread distribution of the MOC system in mammals. The paucity of high-intensity noise and the near ubiquity of low-level noise in natural environments supports the hypothesis that the MOC system evolved as a mechanism for "unmasking" biologically significant acoustic stimuli by reducing the response of the cochlea to simultaneous low-level noise. This suggested role enjoys widespread experimental support.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12784134      PMCID: PMC3202749          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-002-3013-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  93 in total

1.  Afferent and efferent innervation of the cat cochlea: quantitative analysis with light and electron microscopy.

Authors:  M C Liberman; L W Dodds; S Pierce
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  1990-11-15       Impact factor: 3.215

2.  Sympathectomy improves the ear's resistance to acoustic trauma--could stress render the ear more sensitive?

Authors:  K C Horner; F Giraudet; M Lucciano; Y Cazals
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.386

3.  Fast, slow, and steady-state effects of contralateral acoustic activation of the medial olivocochlear efferent system in awake guinea pigs: action of gentamicin.

Authors:  D L da Costa; A Chibois; J P Erre; C Blanchet; R C de Sauvage; J M Aran
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Medial efferent inhibition produces the largest equivalent attenuations at moderate to high sound levels in cat auditory-nerve fibers.

Authors:  J J Guinan; K M Stankovic
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  The medial cochlear efferent system does not appear to contribute to the development of acquired resistance to acoustic trauma.

Authors:  T Yamasoba; D F Dolan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Susceptibility to auditory fatigue: comparison of changes in cochlear nerve potentials in the guinea pig and chinchilla.

Authors:  C Mitchell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Unilateral hearing losses alter loud sound-induced temporary threshold shifts and efferent effects in the normal-hearing ear.

Authors:  R Rajan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Crossed olivocochlear bundle: electrical stimulation enhances masked neural responses to loud clicks.

Authors:  P C Nieder; I Nieder
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1970-06-30       Impact factor: 3.252

9.  Effects of contralateral sound on auditory-nerve responses. II. Dependence on stimulus variables.

Authors:  E H Warren; M C Liberman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Efferent innervation of the organ of corti: two separate systems.

Authors:  W B Warr; J J Guinan
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1979-09-07       Impact factor: 3.252

View more
  19 in total

1.  Temporal properties of perceptual calibration to local and broad spectral characteristics of a listening context.

Authors:  Joshua M Alexander; Keith R Kluender
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  Modulation of hair cell efferents.

Authors:  Eric Wersinger; Paul Albert Fuchs
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-12-25       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  The paradox of hearing at the lek: auditory sensitivity increases after breeding in female gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis).

Authors:  Alexander T Baugh; Mark A Bee; Megan D Gall
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 1.836

Review 4.  Recent findings and emerging questions in cochlear noise injury.

Authors:  Kevin K Ohlemiller
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-08-29       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  The medial olivocochlear system attenuates the developmental impact of early noise exposure.

Authors:  Amanda M Lauer; Bradford J May
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-02-23

6.  Neural Encoding of Amplitude Modulations in the Human Efferent System.

Authors:  Srikanta K Mishra; Milan Biswal
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-04-29

7.  Efferent feedback slows cochlear aging.

Authors:  M Charles Liberman; Leslie D Liberman; Stéphane F Maison
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 8.  The cochlear CRF signaling systems and their mechanisms of action in modulating cochlear sensitivity and protection against trauma.

Authors:  Christine E Graham; Johnvesly Basappa; Sevin Turcan; Douglas E Vetter
Journal:  Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2011-09-11       Impact factor: 5.590

9.  Selective removal of lateral olivocochlear efferents increases vulnerability to acute acoustic injury.

Authors:  Keith N Darrow; Stéphane F Maison; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Efferent feedback minimizes cochlear neuropathy from moderate noise exposure.

Authors:  Stéphane F Maison; Hajime Usubuchi; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.