ArticlePeerJ2017
Heightened visual attention does not affect inner ear function as measured by otoacoustic emissions.
Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fluctuations of Otoacoustic Emissions and Medial Olivocochlear Reflexes: Tracking One Subject over a Year.Audiology research · 2022Article
- The Reliability of Contralateral Suppression of Otoacoustic Emissions Is Greater in Women than in Men.Audiology research · 2022Article
- No Change in Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Activity during an Auditory or Visual Task: Dual Evidence from Otoacoustic Emissions and Event-Related Potentials.Brain sciences · 2020Article
- Article
- Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emissions Reveal an Efficient Auditory Efferent Network.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research has indicated that inner ear function might be modulated by visual attention, although the results have not been totally conclusive. Conceivably, modulation of hearing might occur due to stimulation of the cochlea via descending medial olivocochlear (MOC) neurons. The aim of the present study was to test whether increased visual attention caused corresponding changes in inner ear function, which was measured by the strength of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) recorded from the ear canal in response to a steady train of clicks. To manipulate attention, we asked subjects to attend to, or ignore, visual stimuli delivered according to an odd-ball paradigm. The subjects were presented with two types of visual stimuli: standard and deviant (20% of all stimuli, randomly presented). During a passive part of the experiment, subjects had to just observe a pattern of squares on a computer screen. In an active condition, the subject's task was to silently count the occasional inverted (deviant) pattern on the screen. At all times, visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were used to objectively gauge the subject's state of attention, and OAEs in response to clicks (transiently evoked OAEs, TEOAEs) were used to gauge inner ear function. As a test of descending neural activity, TEOAE levels were evaluated with and without contralateral acoustic stimulation (CAS) by broadband noise, a paradigm known to activate the MOC pathway. Our results showed that the recorded VEPs were, as expected, a good measure of visual attention, but even when attention levels changed there was no corresponding change in TEOAE levels. We conclude that visual attention does not significantly affect inner ear function.
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.