Contralateral auditory stimulation alters acoustic distortion products in humans

Moulin, Annie; Collet, Lionel; Duclaux, R.

doi:10.1016/0378-5955(93)90213-k

Cited by 138 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This was the case for two levels of the primary tones used. The finding is consistent with previous reports that have demonstrated a similar influence of the contralateral suppressor level on OAE suppression (Collet et al, 1990;Moulin et al, 1993;Zhang et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…According to Gelfand and Piper (1984), the MER threshold for broad-band noise was around 75 dB SPL. Moulin et al (1993) claimed that it was not likely that the MER could contribute to DPOAE suppression, since CAS up to 70 dB SPL could cause similar suppression in subjects with and without the MER. Henin et al (2011) showed that MER contractions were not a significant source of contamination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ipsilateral or contralateral sound stimulation causes amplitude changes in various types of otoacoustic emissions (Puel, Rebillard, 1990;Berlin et al, 1993;Moulin et al, 1993;Collet et al, 1994;Giraud et al, 1995). Bilateral stimulation produces changes which approximately correspond to the sum of ipsilateral plus contralateral stimulation (Lilaonitkul, Guinan, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Changes in Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission Caused by Contralateral Broadband Noise

Ozimek

Wicher

2015

Archives of Acoustics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of this investigation was to measure the effect of contralateral acoustic stimulation (CAS) on distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) in twenty human ears, for a ratio of primary tones f2/f1 = 1.22 and a wide frequency range of f2 (1.4-9 kHz), for two intensity levels of primary tones (L1 = 60 dB SPL; L2 = 50 dB SPL and L1 = 70 dB SPL; L2 = 60 dB SPL) and two intensity levels of CAS (50 and 60 dB SPL). It was found that in the presence of CAS, in the majority of cases the DPOAE level decreased (suppression), but it might also increase (enhancement) or remain unchanged depending on the frequency. The mean suppression level of the component of the frequency fDP = 2f1 − f2 might be approximated by a linearly decreasing function of the f2 frequency of primary tones. The slope of this function was negative and increased with an increase of the contralateral stimulation level. The higher was the contralateral noise level the greater was the suppression. For the fDP level below about 15 dB SPL, suppression was observed in a substantial number of measurement cases (in about 85% of all measured cases on average). When the fDP level was higher than 15 dB SPL, only suppression (not enhancement) was observed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Changes in Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission Caused by Contralateral Broadband Noise

Ozimek

Wicher

2015

Archives of Acoustics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the basis of these data, the hypothesis ofa relationship between medial olivocochlear bundle activity and tone decay may be considered, all the more so since this medial olivocochlear system has been shown, in both animals (Liberman, 1989) and humans (Berlin, Hood, Hurley, Wen, & Kemp, 1995;Moulin, Collet, & Duclaux, 1993;Veuillet, Collet, & Duclaux, 1991), to be more effective at low stimulus levels, which are those where loudness adaptation occurs. During the last 10 years, it has been demonstrated that medial olivocochlear system activity can be measured in terms of the degree of amplitude attenuation of otoacoustic emissions (sounds emitted by the ear that can be recorded in the external auditory meatus) under acoustic stimulation to the opposite ear (Collet, Veuillet, Chanal, & Morgon, 1991;Veuillet et aI., 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tones disappear faster in the right ear than in the left

Khalfa

Micheyl

Pham

et al. 2000

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to gain further information on the characteristics and physiological correlates oftone decay in humans, the tone decay test was administered to 58 normal-hearing subjects, successively in the left and right ears and in absence and presence of a contralateral noise. The results revealed that tone decay was greater in the right than in the left ear and was increased by contralateral noise. The contralateral effect of this noise on cochlear biomechanisms was then estimated by measuring contralaterally induced variations in the amplitude of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in the same subjects. In the right ear, the increase in tone decay and the decrease in otoacoustic emission amplitude-both induced by contralateral noise-were positively correlated (r = .315, p =.016). Furthermore, the contralateral changes in otoacoustic emission amplitude were found to be on average larger in the right than in the left ear, this asymmetry being correlated with that observed for the tone decay. These findings are discussed in relation to previous results on simple and induced loudness adaptation in the vicinity of threshold, on contralateral attenuation of otoacoustic emissions and on the influence of the auditory efferents on cochlear biomechanisms.

show abstract

“…Although the ways that the OC reflexes provide protection is poorly understood, the data showing that the OC system is protective are highly persuasive. Table 1 summarizes potential protective OC mechanisms. OC-efferent-induced changes to the cochlear amplifier are detectable with otoacoustic emissions (OAE) [39,40], basilar-membrane (BM) motion [6,12,41], IHC responses [3], and auditory-nerve (AN) responses [25,51,52].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How can the auditory efferent system protect our ears from noise-induced hearing loss? Let us count the ways

Marshall¹,

Miller²

2015

AIP Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contralateral auditory stimulation alters acoustic distortion products in humans

Cited by 138 publications

References 36 publications

Changes in Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission Caused by Contralateral Broadband Noise

Changes in Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission Caused by Contralateral Broadband Noise

Tones disappear faster in the right ear than in the left

How can the auditory efferent system protect our ears from noise-induced hearing loss? Let us count the ways

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About