Psychoacoustic measures probe efferent function even where OAEs fail

Evidence

Overall, direct comparisons of gain estimates between OAEand psychophysical-based measures of efferent activation are problematic, even if measuring SFOAEs with elicitors (analogous to a precursor in psychophysical studies) mainly due to constraints in stimulus design. However, once the effects of OAE stimulus constraints such as the use of a broadband elicitor (presented contralaterally to elicit the greatest efferent response), use of an ongoing long-duration probe-tone stimulus (required for preand post-elicitor measurement of SFOAEs), and the possibility of two-tone cochlear suppressive effects with ipsilateral elicitor presentation are taken into account, the reduction in SFOAEs with an elicitor (e.g., Guinan et al. 2003 ) show gain reduction trends that may be in some cases comparable to those found in the present study. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5981 (#responds-to, via linked claim)

Our next steps include assessing the potential benefits of more accurate MOC-strategy implementations and parameters. Despite these inaccuracies, it is tempting to conjecture that the natural contralateral MOCR can produce effects and benefits for acoustic hearing similar to those reported here for the MOC processor. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1979 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

Related

• Otoacoustic and psychophysical estimates of efferent gain disagree due to stimulus constraints (similarity 0.84)
• The modeled efferent effects likely generalize to natural acoustic hearing (similarity 0.84)
• Human efferent tuning measured psychoacoustically matches otoacoustic-emission measures (similarity 0.84)
• Contralateral efferent inhibition amplifies interaural level differences (similarity 0.84)
• Brain efferents can dynamically adjust cochlear gain during listening (similarity 0.83)
• The contralateral efferent reflex inhibits cochlear compression at matched frequencies (similarity 0.83)
• Stronger contralateral sound causes greater efferent inhibition and more linear cochlear response (similarity 0.83)
• Medial olivocochlear efferents actively modulate cochlear gain during binaural listening (similarity 0.83)
• Contralateral efferent inhibition is nonlinear and output-dependent, amplifying asymmetries (similarity 0.82)
• Contralateral efferent inhibition of compression amplifies inter-aural level differences (similarity 0.82)
• Contralateral efferent inhibition is proportional to output energy, magnifying inter-aural differences. (similarity 0.81)
• MOC efferents reflexively modulate cochlear gain via outer hair cells (similarity 0.81)
• The medial olivocochlear reflex inhibits cochlear compression contralaterally in a graded, output-dependent manner (similarity 0.81)
• Efferent effects extend 0.5-2 octaves around the probe frequency. (similarity 0.81)
• Efferent inhibition is strongest for tones near the cochlear site’s frequency (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Otoacoustic and psychophysical estimates of efferent gain disagree due to stimulus constraints #responds-to (0.88) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5981
• The modeled efferent effects likely generalize to natural acoustic hearing #expands (0.80) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 1979