Literature DB >> 9836136

Feedback control of the auditory periphery: anti-masking effects of middle ear muscles vs. olivocochlear efferents.

M C Liberman1, J J Guinan.   

Abstract

Both MEM and MOC systems are sound-evoked reflexes to the auditory periphery which can be elicited by sound in either ear. Both MEM and MOC systems can increase thresholds in the auditory periphery: the MEM system acts by stiffening the ossicular chain, the MOC system by decreasing outer hair cell amplification of sound-induced motion in the inner ear. MEM-induced attenuations are largest for low frequency stimuli, MOC-induced attenuations are largest for mid- to high-frequency sounds. Both MEM and MOC systems can have anti-masking effects. The MEM reflex can decrease the masking of high-frequency signals by low-frequency noise (i.e., the upward spread of masking). The MOC reflex is complementary in that it minimizes masking of high-frequency transient signals by high-frequency continuous noise. MEM anti-masking arises by reducing suppressive masking and can improve masked thresholds at high frequencies. MOC anti-masking arises by counteracting excitatory masking. It does not improve masked thresholds, but can improve the detectability of small suprathreshold intensity increments. Anti-masking effects of both MEM and MOC systems should be reduced in cases of sensorineural hearing loss.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9836136     DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9924(98)00019-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Commun Disord        ISSN: 0021-9924            Impact factor:   2.288


  33 in total

1.  A multifrequency method for determining cochlear efferent activity.

Authors:  Anne E Luebke; Paul K Foster; Barden B Stagner
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2002-03

Review 2.  Protection from acoustic trauma is not a primary function of the medial olivocochlear efferent system.

Authors:  E Christopher Kirk; David W Smith
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-06-06

3.  What is the role of the medial olivocochlear system in speech-in-noise processing?

Authors:  Jessica de Boer; A Roger D Thornton; Katrin Krumbholz
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Contralateral-noise effects on cochlear responses in anesthetized mice are dominated by feedback from an unknown pathway.

Authors:  Stéphane F Maison; Hajime Usubuchi; Douglas E Vetter; A Bélen Elgoyhen; Steven A Thomas; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 5.  Auditory brainstem circuits that mediate the middle ear muscle reflex.

Authors:  Sudeep Mukerji; Alanna Marie Windsor; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-09-23

6.  Auditory attentional filter in the absence of masking noise.

Authors:  Elan Selvi Anandan; Ruby Husain; Kumar Seluakumaran
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-01-03       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Functional Interplay Between the Putative Measures of Rostral and Caudal Efferent Regulation of Speech Perception in Noise.

Authors:  Sandeep Maruthy; U Ajith Kumar; G Nike Gnanateja
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-04-26

8.  Single-unit labeling of medial olivocochlear neurons: the cochlear frequency map for efferent axons.

Authors:  M Christian Brown
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Abnormal auditory forward masking pattern in the brainstem response of individuals with Asperger syndrome.

Authors:  Johan Källstrand; Olle Olsson; Sara Fristedt Nehlstedt; Mia Ling Sköld; Sören Nielzén
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 2.570

10.  Contralateral cochlear effects of ipsilateral damage: no evidence for interaural coupling.

Authors:  Erik Larsen; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-11-26       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.