ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2017
Contralateral Inhibition of Click- and Chirp-Evoked Human Compound Action Potentials.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effects of contralateral noise on envelope-following responses, auditory-nerve compound action potentials, and otoacoustic emissions measured simultaneously.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Subcortical auditory model including efferent dynamic gain control with inputs from cochlear nucleus and inferior colliculus.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Auditory brainstem mechanisms likely compensate for self-imposed peripheral inhibition.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Computational modeling of the human compound action potential.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023Article
- Firing Rate Adaptation of the Human Auditory Nerve Optimizes Neural Signal-to-Noise Ratios.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022Article
- Estradiol Protects against Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and Modulates Auditory Physiology in Female Mice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- The effect of broadband elicitor laterality on psychoacoustic gain reduction across signal frequency.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2021Article
- The role of the medial olivocochlear reflex in psychophysical masking and intensity resolution in humans: a review.Journal of neurophysiology · 2021Review
- Enhanced Auditory Steady-State Response Using an Optimized Chirp Stimulus-Evoked Paradigm.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Olivocochlear efferents: Their action, effects, measurement and uses, and the impact of the new conception of cochlear mechanical responses.Hearing research · 2018Review
- Olivocochlear Efferents in Animals and Humans: From Anatomy to Clinical Relevance.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Review
- Efferent modulation of pre-neural and neural distortion products.Hearing research · 2017Article
- Increased medial olivocochlear reflex strength in normal-hearing, noise-exposed humans.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.