Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18681598›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2008

Medial olivocochlear efferent inhibition of basilar-membrane responses to clicks: evidence for two modes of cochlear mechanical excitation.

John J Guinan, Nigel P Cooper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Pathway Potentiates Cochlear Amplification in Response to Hearing Loss.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Effect of Efferent Stimulation on the Differential Sensitivity in Individuals with Normal Hearing.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Longitudinal spread of mechanical excitation through tectorial membrane traveling waves.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
    Article
  16. Reverse correlation analysis of auditory-nerve fiber responses to broadband noise in a bird, the barn owl.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

John J GuinanEaton-Peabody Laboratory, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, 243 Charles Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA. jjg@epl.meei.harvard.edu
Nigel P Cooper

Funding

OLIVOCOCHLEAR EFFERENT SYSTEMS AND COCHLEAR PHYSIOLOGYR01DC000235 · NIDCD · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI GUINAN, JOHN J · 1988 to 2012
$2.8M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC000235NIDCD NIH HHS R01DC00235
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conceptualizations of mammalian cochlear mechanics are based on basilar-membrane (BM) traveling waves that scale with frequency along the length of the cochlea, are amplified by outer hair cells (OHCs), and excite inner hair cells and auditory-nerve (AN) fibers in a simple way. However, recent experimental work has shown medial-olivocochlear (MOC) inhibition of AN responses to clicks that do not fit with this picture. To test whether this AN-initial-peak (ANIP) inhibition might result from hitherto unrecognized aspects of the traveling-wave or MOC-evoked inhibition, MOC effects on BM responses to clicks in the basal turns of guinea pig and chinchilla cochleae were measured. MOC stimulation inhibited BM click responses in a time and level dependent manner. Inhibition was not seen during the first half-cycle of the responses, but built up gradually, and ultimately increased the responses' decay rates. MOC stimulation also produced small phase leads in the response wave forms, but had little effect on the instantaneous frequency or the waxing and waning of the responses. These data, plus recent AN data, support the hypothesis that the MOC-evoked inhibitions of the traveling wave and of the ANIP response are separate phenomena, and indicate that the OHCs can affect at least two separate modes of excitation in the mammalian cochlea.

Indexed as

Mechanotransduction, CellularNeural InhibitionAcoustic StimulationAction PotentialsAnimalsBasilar MembraneChinchillaCochleaCochlear NerveEfferent PathwaysGuinea PigsHair Cells, Auditory, OuterOlivary NucleusSound SpectrographyTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID18681598
PMCPMC2606092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.