ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2017
Electrically Evoked Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Effects on Stimulus Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions in Guinea Pigs.
Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Correlation and Reliability of Behavioral and Otoacoustic-Emission Estimates of Contralateral Medial Olivocochlear Reflex Strength in Humans.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Olivocochlear efferents: Their action, effects, measurement and uses, and the impact of the new conception of cochlear mechanical responses.Hearing research · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions (SFOAEs) are produced by cochlear irregularities reflecting energy from the peak region of the traveling wave (TW). Activation of medial olivocochlear (MOC) efferents reduces cochlear amplification and otoacoustic emissions (OAEs). In other OAEs, MOC activation can produce enhancements. The extent of MOC enhancements of SFOAEs has not been previously studied. In anesthetized guinea pigs, we electrically stimulated MOC fibers and recorded their effects on SFOAEs. MOC stimulation mostly inhibited SFOAEs but sometimes enhanced them. Some enhancements were not near response dips and therefore cannot be explained by a reduction of wavelet cancelations. MOC stimulation always inhibited auditory-nerve compound action potentials showing that cochlear-amplifier gain was not increased. We propose that some SFOAE enhancements arise because shocks excite only a small number of MOC fibers that inhibit a few scattered outer hair cells thereby changing (perhaps increasing) cochlear irregularities and SFOAE amplitudes. Contralateral sound activation is expected to excite approximately one third of MOC efferents and may also change cochlear irregularities. Some papers suggest that large SFOAE components originate far basal of the TW peak, basal of the region that receives cochlear amplification. Using a time-frequency analysis, we separated SFOAEs into components with different latencies. At all SFOAE latencies, most SFOAE components were inhibited by MOC stimulation, but some were enhanced. The MOC inhibition of short-latency SFOAE components is consistent with these components being produced in the cochlear-amplified region near the TW peak.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.