The influence of contralateral acoustic stimulation on click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans

Ryan, Sheila; Kemp, David T.; Hinchcliffe, R.

doi:10.3109/03005369109076614

Cited by 82 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Investigators have turned their attention to the study of the effects of contralateral stimuli on various parameters of evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans and in £uiimals and have demonstrated that stimulation of the ear opposite the one receiving the evoking stimulus reduces the amplitude of the otoacoustic emission (Berlin, Hood, Cecola, Jackson, & Szabo, 1993a;Berlin et al, 1994;Berlin et al, 1993b;Collet et al, 1990;Collet et al, 1992;Harrison & Bums, 1993;Kujawa, Glattke, Fallon, & Bobbin, 1992;Puel & Rebillard, 1990;Ryan, Kemp, & Hinchcliffe, 1991;Veuillet, Collet, & Duclaux, 1991). This effect is believed to be mediated by the MOC system (Berlin et al, 1994;Collet, 1993;Collet et al, 1990;Giraud, Collet, Chery-Croze, Magnan, & Chays, 1995), and suggests that the contralateral suppression of auditory nerve responses described previously may result from activity at the cochlear level.…”

Section: Suppression Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The suppression effect on evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans is a small but consistent decrease of 1-4 dB in overall emission amplitude in the presence of a contralateral acoustic stimulus (Berlin et al, 1993b(Berlin et al, , 1994Collet et al, 1990Collet et al, , 1992Ryan et al, 1991Ryan et al, , 1996Veuillet et al, 1991;Veuillet, Duverdy-Bertholon, & Collet, 1996). Collet is credited as the first person to describe contralateral suppression of evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans (Berlin et al, 1993b;Collet et al, 1990).…”

Section: Suppression Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of noise bandwidth on the contralateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions

Velenovsky

Glattke

2002

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfihn master. UMI fihns the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI STATEMENT BY AUTHORThis dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. The results of the present study indicate that an increase in loudness as associated by an increase in noise bandwidth affects the contralateral suppression of TEOAEs. Only the WB noise was associated with a reduction of TEOAE amplitudes. It is believed that this effect results because the WB noise has greater effective energy representation across frequency on the basilar membrane. Although the spectrum level of the WB noise is lower than that of the NB noise at the transducer, it receives more gain from the action of the cochlear amplifier than the NB noise and thus has greater energy representation on the cochlear partition. While the effective energy level on the basilar membrane may have been essentially the same for the WB and EQ noises as a result of the action of the cochlear amplifier, the WB noise was the more effective suppressor because its energy was summed across multiple critical bands. The energy in the EQ noise was confined to a sing...

show abstract

Section: Suppression Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Suppression Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of noise bandwidth on the contralateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions

Velenovsky

Glattke

2002

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This suppression effect was noticed by numerous authors such as the reduction in the response level of spontaneous and evoked otoacoustic emissions with the use of contralateral acoustic stimulation 2,3 . Ryan et al 3 reported that contralateral acoustic stimulation reduces TEOAE amplitude. This phenomenon may be mediated by the medial olivocochlear efferent system and, thus, its presence may be used to assess the integrity of the neural communication from one cochlea to another.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 67%

O papel do sistema olivococlear medial em crianças portadoras de TDAH

Pereira

Feitosa

Pereira

et al. 2012

Braz. j. otorhinolaryngol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A ttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients show, as one of the main symptoms, an attentional impairment. Selective attention in the hearing process is the ability to understand speech in a noisy environment, which can be evaluated by several methods. One of the main approaches is the functioning of the Medial Olivocochlear Efferent System, which can be accessed by TransientEvoked Otoacoustic Emissions (TOAE).Objective: This study aimed at evaluating the suppression effect of contralateral noise on TOAE in ADHD (study group) and normal subjects (control group). Study Design: Case-control study. Material and Methods:A study with 20 children distributed in two, age-and gender-matched groups. Results: No differences were found in TOAE responses between the two groups, with and without noise. Conclusions:We conclude that there were no functional differences in the Medial Olivocochlear Efferent System in the two groups analyzed. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;78(3):27-31. ORIGINAL ARTICLE

show abstract

“…The function of the MOCB can be investigated by measuring otoacoustic emissions (OAE). The amplitude of OAE can be reduced by contralateral acoustic stimulation (Warren and Liberman 1989;Collet et al 1990;Ryan et al 1991;Berlin et al 1993b), which is described as OAE suppression effect. This OAE suppression is related to speech understanding in noise (Kumar and Vanaja 2004) and is diminished (or even absent) in patients with speech in noise understanding impairments (Berlin et al 1993a;Starr et al 1996).…”

Section: Discrimination Deficits and Possible Top-down Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Processing Disorders with and without Central Auditory Discrimination Deficits

Ludwig

Fuchs

Kruse

et al. 2014

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory processing disorder (APD) is defined as a processing deficit in the auditory modality and spans multiple processes. To date, APD diagnosis is mostly based on the utilization of speech material. Adequate nonspeech tests that allow differentiation between an actual central hearing disorder and related disorders such as specific language impairments are still not adequately available. In the present study, 84 children between 6 and 17 years of age (clinical group), referred to three audiological centers for APD diagnosis, were evaluated with standard audiological tests and additional auditory discrimination tests. Latter tests assessed the processing of basic acoustic features at two different stages of the ascending central auditory system: (1) auditory brainstem processing was evaluated by quantifying interaural frequency, level, and signal duration discrimination (interaural tests). (2) Diencephalic/telencephalic processing was assessed by varying the same acoustic parameters (plus signals with sinusoidal amplitude modulation), but presenting the test signals in conjunction with noise pulses to the contralateral ear (dichotic signal/ noise tests). Data of children in the clinical group were referenced to normative data obtained from more than 300 normally developing healthy school children. The results in the audiological and the discrimination tests diverged widely. Of the 39 children that were diagnosed with APD in the audiological clinic, 30 had deficits in auditory performance. Even more alarming was the fact that of the 45 children with a negative APD diagnosis, 32 showed clear signs of a central hearing deficit. Based on these results, we suggest revising current diagnostic procedure to evaluate APD in order to more clearly differentiate between central auditory processing deficits and higher-order (cognitive and/or language) processing deficits.

show abstract

The influence of contralateral acoustic stimulation on click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans

Cited by 82 publications

References 10 publications

The effect of noise bandwidth on the contralateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions

The effect of noise bandwidth on the contralateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions

O papel do sistema olivococlear medial em crianças portadoras de TDAH

Auditory Processing Disorders with and without Central Auditory Discrimination Deficits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About