Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28420960›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2017

Contralateral Inhibition of Click- and Chirp-Evoked Human Compound Action Potentials.

Spencer B Smith, Jeffery T Lichtenhan, Barbara K Cone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Computational modeling of the human compound action potential.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023
    Article
  6. Firing Rate Adaptation of the Human Auditory Nerve Optimizes Neural Signal-to-Noise Ratios.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Spencer B SmithDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of ArizonaTucson, AZ, USA.
Jeffery T LichtenhanDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of MedicineSt. Louis, MO, USA.
Barbara K ConeDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of ArizonaTucson, AZ, USA.

Funding

ORIGINS OF PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS FROM THE EARR01DC014997 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI LICHTENHAN, JEFFERY · 2016 to 2020
$1.6M
How does the efferent auditory system function in the neural encoding and perception of speech-in-noise?F30DC014180 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI SMITH, SPENCER · 2014 to 2016
$109k
NIDCD NIH HHS F30 DC014180NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014997
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cochlear outer hair cells (OHC) receive direct efferent feedback from the caudal auditory brainstem via the medial olivocochlear (MOC) bundle. This circuit provides the neural substrate for the MOC reflex, which inhibits cochlear amplifier gain and is believed to play a role in listening in noise and protection from acoustic overexposure. The human MOC reflex has been studied extensively using otoacoustic emissions (OAE) paradigms; however, these measurements are insensitive to subsequent "downstream" efferent effects on the neural ensembles that mediate hearing. In this experiment, click- and chirp-evoked auditory nerve compound action potential (CAP) amplitudes were measured electrocochleographically from the human eardrum without and with MOC reflex activation elicited by contralateral broadband noise. We hypothesized that the chirp would be a more optimal stimulus for measuring neural MOC effects because it synchronizes excitation along the entire length of the basilar membrane and thus evokes a more robust CAP than a click at low to moderate stimulus levels. Chirps produced larger CAPs than clicks at all stimulus intensities (50-80 dB ppeSPL). MOC reflex inhibition of CAPs was larger for chirps than clicks at low stimulus levels when quantified both in terms of amplitude reduction and effective attenuation. Effective attenuation was larger for chirp- and click-evoked CAPs than for click-evoked OAEs measured from the same subjects. Our results suggest that the chirp is an optimal stimulus for evoking CAPs at low stimulus intensities and for assessing MOC reflex effects on the auditory nerve. Further, our work supports previous findings that MOC reflex effects at the level of the auditory nerve are underestimated by measures of OAE inhibition.

Indexed as

chirpscompound action potentialefferent auditory systemelectrocochleographymedial olivocochlear reflex

Identifiers

PMID28420960
PMCPMC5378791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.