Changes in otoacoustic emissions during selective auditory and visual attention

Walsh, Kyle P.; Pasanen, Edward G.; McFadden, Dennis

doi:10.1121/1.4919350

Cited by 38 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, results of the present study also showed a significantly lower noise floor for condition 2 (active listening) compared to other conditions, comparable to the results established by several investigators [132223]. Lower noise floor could be attributed to the efferent activity associated with the attentional demands of the behavioural tasks [23]. Another possible reason for lower noise floor is that when attending to auditory stimuli, listener might attempt to control physiological noise by limiting motion and controlling breathing [11].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Role of Active Listening and Listening Effort on Contralateral Suppression of Transient Evoked Otoacousic Emissions

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and ObjectivesThe present study aimed to investigate the effect of active listening and listening effort on the contralateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (CSTEOAEs).Subjects and MethodsTwenty eight young adults participated in the study. Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) were recorded using ‘linear’ clicks at 60 dB peSPL, in three contralateral noise conditions. In condition 1, TEOAEs were obtained in the presence of white noise in the contralateral ear. While, in condition 2, speech was embedded into white noise at +3, −3, and −9 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and delivered to the contralateral ear. The SNR was varied to investigate the effect of listening effort on the CSTEOAE. In condition 3, speech was played backwards and embedded into white noise at −3 dB SNR. The conditions 1 and 3 served as passive listening condition and the condition 2 served as active listening condition. In active listening condition, the participants categorized the words in to two groups (e.g., animal and vehicle).ResultsCSTEOAE was found to be largest in the presence of white noise, and the amount of CSTEOAE was not significantly different between active and passive listening conditions (condition 2 and 3). Listening effort had an effect on the CSTEOAE, the amount of suppression increased with listening effort, when SNR was decreased from +3 dB to −3 dB. However, when the SNR was further reduced to −9 dB, there was no further increase in the amount of CSTEOAE, instead there was a reduction in the amount of suppression.ConclusionsThe findings of the present study show that listening effort might affect CSTEOAE.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Role of Active Listening and Listening Effort on Contralateral Suppression of Transient Evoked Otoacousic Emissions

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, Walsh et al (2014;2015) reported a large decrease (~3 dB) in ear-canal noise in all of 447 their subjects when the subject did a behavioral discrimination compared to during passive listening. 448…”

Section: Comparison With Previous Reports 441mentioning

confidence: 85%

“…During both 63 auditory and visual tasks there was a reduction in ear-canal noise (i.e. a reduction in the nSFOAE) 64 relative to when the subject was presented the same stimuli but did not do a task (Walsh et al, 2014a;65 2014b, 2015. For an auditory task, the reduction was similar in both the attended ear and the 66 opposite ear.…”

Section: Introduction 47mentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introduction 47mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast to the assumption that ear-canal noise is not changed during a behavioral task, several 58 studies have reported such changes (de Boer, and Thornton, 2007;Walsh et al, 2014a;2014b, 2015. 59 Walsh et al (2014;2015) reported that ear-canal random noise was reduced by selective attention 60 activating MOC efferents. In the Walsh et al experiments, ear-canal noise was indirectly measured 61 during a 30 ms silent period by a double-evoked technique that yielded a measure termed a 62 "nonlinear stimulus frequency otoacoustic emission" or "nSFOAE" (Walsh et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introduction 47mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Auditory attention reduced ear-canal noise in humans, but not through medial olivocochlear efferent inhibition: Implications for measuring otoacoustic emissions during behavioral task performance

Francis

Zhao

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

22Otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) are often measured to non-invasively determine activation of medial 23 olivocochlear (MOC) efferents in humans. Usually these experiments assume that ear-canal noise 24 remains constant. However, changes in ear-canal noise have been reported in some behavioral 25 experiments. We studied the variability of ear-canal noise in eight subjects who performed a two-26interval-forced-choice (2IFC) sound-level-discrimination task on monaural tone pips in masking 27 noise. Ear-canal noise was recorded directly from the unstimulated ear opposite the task ear. 28Recordings were also done with similar sounds presented, but no task done. In task trials, ear-canal 29 noise was reduced at the time the subject did the discrimination, relative to the noise level earlier in 30 the trial. In two subjects, there was a decrease in ear-canal noise, primarily at 1-2 kHz, with a time 31 course similar to that expected from inhibition by MOC activity elicited by the task-ear masker noise. 32These were the only subjects with spontaneous OAEs (SOAEs). We hypothesize that the SOAEs 33were inhibited by MOC activity elicited by the task-ear masker. Based on the standard rationale in 34 OAE experiments that large bursts of noise are artifacts due to subject movement, noise bursts above 35 a sound-level criterion were removed. As the criterion was lowered and more high-and moderate-36 level noise bursts were removed, the reduction in noise level from the beginning of the trial to the 37 time of the 2IFC discrimination became less. This pattern is opposite that expected from MOC 38 inhibition (which is greater on lower-level sounds), but can be explained by the hypothesis that 39 subjects move less and create fewer bursts of noise when they concentrate on doing the task. In 40 contrast, for the six subjects with no SOAEs, in no-task trials the noise level was little changed 41 throughout the trial. Our results show that measurements of MOC effects on OAEs must measure and 42 account for changes in ear-canal noise, especially in behavioral experiments. The results also provide 43 a novel way of showing the time course of the buildup of attention in ear-canal noise during a 2IFC 44 task. 45 46

show abstract

Projections from the ventral nucleus of the lateral lemniscus to the cochlea in the mouse

Suthakar

Ryugo

2021

J of Comparative Neurology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory efferents originate in the central auditory system and project to the cochlea. Although the specific anatomy of the olivocochlear (OC) efferents can vary between species, two types of auditory efferents have been identified based upon the general location of their cell bodies and their distinctly different axon terminations in the organ of Corti. In the mouse, the relatively small somata of the lateral (LOC) efferents reside in the lateral superior olive (LSO), have unmyelinated axons, and terminate around ipsilateral inner hair cells (IHCs), primarily against the afferent processes of type I auditory nerve fibers. In contrast, the larger somata of the medial (MOC) efferents are distributed in the ventral nucleus of the trapezoid body (VNTB), have myelinated axons, and terminate bilaterally against the base of multiple outer hair cells (OHCs). Using in vivo retrograde cell body marking, anterograde axon tracing, immunohistochemistry, and electron microscopy, we have identified a group of efferent neurons in mouse, whose cell bodies reside in the ventral nucleus of the lateral lemniscus (VNLL). By virtue of their location, we call them dorsal efferent (DE) neurons. Labeled DE cells were immuno-negative for tyrosine hydroxylase, glycine, and GABA, but immuno-positive for choline acetyltransferase.Morphologically, DEs resembled LOC efferents by their small somata, unmyelinated axons, and ipsilateral projection to IHCs. These three classes of efferent neurons all project axons directly to the cochlea and exhibit cholinergic staining characteristics.The challenge is to discover the contributions of this new population of neurons to auditory efferent function.

show abstract

Changes in otoacoustic emissions during selective auditory and visual attention

Cited by 38 publications

References 61 publications

Role of Active Listening and Listening Effort on Contralateral Suppression of Transient Evoked Otoacousic Emissions

Role of Active Listening and Listening Effort on Contralateral Suppression of Transient Evoked Otoacousic Emissions

Auditory attention reduced ear-canal noise in humans, but not through medial olivocochlear efferent inhibition: Implications for measuring otoacoustic emissions during behavioral task performance

Projections from the ventral nucleus of the lateral lemniscus to the cochlea in the mouse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About