Contralateral dominance weakens at cortical stages due to commissural connections

Evidence

In the MOC strategy, by contrast, c varied dynamically in time within the range [c max , c min ], where c max and c min produce the most and least amount of compression, respectively. For the natural MOCR, the more intense the contralateral stimulus, the greater the amount of efferent inhibition and the more linear the cochlear mechanical response (Hood et al. 1996 ). On the other hand, it seems reasonable that the amount of MOCR inhibition depends on the magnitude of the output from the cochlea rather than on the level of the acoustic stimulus. Inspired by this, we assumed that the instantaneous value of c for any given frequency channel in an MOC processor was inversely related to the output energy, E , from the corresponding channel in the contralateral MOC processor. In other words, the greater the output energy from a given frequency channel in the left-ear processor, the less the compression in the corresponding frequency channel of the right-ear processor, and vice versa (contralateral ‘on-frequency’ inhibition). — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1954 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Contralateral stimuli explain auditory brain activity better than ipsilateral ones; Cortical intensity encoding becomes ear-independent through strong interhemispheric connections; Stronger contralateral sound causes greater efferent inhibition and more linear cochlear response — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1954

Related

• Contralateral efferent inhibition amplifies interaural level differences (similarity 0.93)
• Stronger contralateral sound causes greater efferent inhibition and more linear cochlear response (similarity 0.93)
• The contralateral efferent reflex inhibits cochlear compression at matched frequencies (similarity 0.91)
• Contralateral efferent inhibition of compression amplifies inter-aural level differences (similarity 0.90)
• Contralateral stimuli explain auditory brain activity better than ipsilateral ones (similarity 0.89)
• Contralateral efferent inhibition is nonlinear and output-dependent, amplifying asymmetries (similarity 0.89)
• Contralateral ear dominance weakens higher in the auditory pathway (similarity 0.89)
• Contralateral efferent inhibition is proportional to output energy, magnifying inter-aural differences. (similarity 0.89)
• Cortical responses to sound are stronger from the opposite ear than the same-side ear (similarity 0.87)
• The medial olivocochlear reflex inhibits cochlear compression contralaterally in a graded, output-dependent manner (similarity 0.87)
• Contralateral efferent-mediated processing can spatially segregate concurrent speech sources by ear (similarity 0.87)
• Contralateral stimulation drives larger auditory cortex BOLD responses than ipsilateral (similarity 0.85)
• Output-based cross-ear inhibition amplifies existing inter-aural asymmetries (similarity 0.85)
• The contralateral efferent reflex strengthens gradually over tens of milliseconds (similarity 0.84)
• The stronger side suppresses the weaker side more, sharpening the lateral asymmetry. (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Cortical intensity encoding becomes ear-independent through strong interhemispheric connections #expands (0.85)
• Contralateral stimuli explain auditory brain activity better than ipsilateral ones #corroborates (0.78)
• Stronger contralateral sound causes greater efferent inhibition and more linear cochlear response #corroborates (0.72) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1954