Research paperEvoked otoacoustic emissions and auditory selective attention
References (83)
Auditory nerve fibre activity influenced by contralateral ear sound stimulation
Exp. Neural.
(1978)- et al.
Sectioning the efferent bundle decreases cochlear frequency selectivity
Neurosci. Lett.
(1982) - et al.
Variability of the influence of a visual task on the active micromechanical properties of the cochlea
Brain Res.
(1990) - et al.
Transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions amplitudes change with changes of directed attention
Physiol. Behav.
(1993) - et al.
Lack of association between transiently evoked otoacoustic emission amplitude and experimentation linked-factors (repeated acoustic stimulation, cerebrospinal fluid pressure, supine and sitting positions, alertness level)
Hear. Res.
(1994) - et al.
Auditory selective attention in the human cochlea
Brain Res.
(1994) - et al.
Effects of visual attention on the latency of auditory evoked potentials
Exp. Neural.
(1977) Otoacoustic emissions, travelling waves and cochlear mechanisms
Hear. Res.
(1986)Functional role of the ofvo-cochlear bundle: a motor unit control system in the mammalian cochlea
Hear. Res.
(1989)Rapid assessment of sound-evoked olivocochlear feedback: suppression of compound action potentials by contralateral sound
Hear. Res.
(1989)
Physiology and anatomy of single olivocochlear neurons in the cat
Hear. Res.
Visual attention and evoked otoacoustic emissions: a slight but real effect
Intern. J. Psychophysiology
Attention and otoacoustic emissions: a review
Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.
Changes in spontaneous otoacoustic emissions produced by acoustic stimulation of the contralateral ear
Hear. Res.
Role of visual attention on auditory evoked potentials in unanesthetized cats
Exp. Neurol.
Effects of visual attention on the intensity of auditory evoked potentials
Exp. Neurol.
Effects of visual attention on tone burst evoked auditory potentials
Exp. Neurol.
Selective attention modifies the active micromechanical properties of the cochlea
Brain Res.
Loudness
On the role of the olivocochlear bundle in hearing: a case study
Hear. Res.
Efferent neural control of cochlear mechanics? Olivo-cochlear bundle stimulation affects cochlear biomechanical nonlinearity
Hear. Res.
Differential effects of ear-canal pressure and contralateral acoustic stimulation on evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans
Hear. Res.
Effects of contralateral sound on auditory-nerve responses. I. Contributions of cochlear efferents
Hear. Res.
Evidence for cochlear origin for acoustic re-emissions, threshold fine-structure and tonal tinnitus
Hear. Res.
Modulation of early auditory processing during selective listening to rapidly presented tones
Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol.
Mechanical preprocessing in the mammalian cochlea
TINS
Analysis of possible interactions of an attentional task with cochlear micromechanics
Hear. Res.
An advanced cochlear echo technique suitable for infant screening
Br. J. Audiol.
The influence of attention on the auditory brain stem evoked response
Acta Otolaryngol. (Stockh.)
Efferent control of cochlear inner hair cell responses in the guinea pig
Hear. Res.
Sound-induced movements and frequency tuning in outer hair cells isolated from the guinea pig cochlea
Acoustically evoked activity of single efferent neurons in the guinea pig cochlea
J. Accost. Soc. Am.
Auditory brainstem evoked responses and attention: contribution to a controversial subject
Acta Otolaryngol. (Stockh.)
Are BAEP and MLR suited for the study of a hypothetical peripheral selective attention effect?
Intern J. Neurosci.
Effect of contralateral auditory stimuli on active cochlear micromechanical properties in human subjects
Hear. Res.
Influence of a contralateral auditory stimulation on evoked otoacoustic emissions
Human brainstem auditory evoked potentials fail to provide evidence of efferent modulation of auditory input during attentional tasks
Psychophysiology
Effective attenuation of signals in noise under focused attention
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
The active cochlea
J. Neurosci.
Efferent olivocochlear bundle: some relationships to noise masking and to stimulus attention
J. Neurophysiol.
Efferent olivocochlear bundle: some relationships to stimulus discrimination in noise
J. Neurophysiol.
Cited by (37)
Olivocochlear efferent effects on perception and behavior
2022, Hearing ResearchCitation Excerpt :Selective attention to visual stimuli can likewise reduce otoacoustic emission amplitudes (Puel et al., 1988). However, these suppressive effects are not observed consistently across individuals or studies, and they may be specific to visual attention in the presence of auditory distractors (Froehlich et al., a, 1990b, 1993; Michie et al., 1996; Srinivasan et al., 2012). Experiments using otoacoustic emissions as physiological readouts of OC activity are subject to a number of methodological and interpretation issues; therefore, studies that carefully control for middle ear muscle reflex activation, ipsilateral and contralateral OC stimulation, tonic versus transient OC activation, effects of task difficulty, and other factors are needed to resolve these discrepancies (Guinan 2014).
Easy and Hard Auditory Tasks Distinguished by Otoacoustic Emissions and Event-related Potentials: Insights into Efferent System Activity
2022, NeuroscienceCitation Excerpt :Some papers have shown a significant effect (e.g. Ferber-Viart et al., 1995) whereas others have demonstrated a virtual absence (e.g. Jedrzejczak et al., 2017). Michie et al. (1996) carefully repeated some earlier experiments by other groups and failed to replicate results showing an effect of attention on OAEs. Furthermore, when looking closer at some papers that show the effect, the procedures themselves might be questionable (Guinan, 2014; Bell and Jedrzejczak 2021).
Function and plasticity of the medial olivocochlear system in musicians: A review
2014, Hearing ResearchCitation Excerpt :These findings suggest that top–down auditory attentional modulation can have a differential interaural effect on cochlear functioning, increasing efferent suppression in one ear when attention is focusing on the other ear (de Boer and Thornton, 2007; de Boer et al., 2012). However, it is important to note that the effects observed in those studies were often quite small (and borderline statistically significant), with large interindividual differences in the magnitude of the effects, and that other studies have obtained different results (Harkrider and Bowers, 2009) or failed to show any significant attentional influence on OAEs (Michie et al., 1996).11 Regarding crossmodal attentional modulation of cochlear functioning, the most commonly observed effect was a decrease in EOAE amplitudes during visual detection task compared with no-task condition, suggesting an enhancement of efferent suppression under visual attention (Froehlich et al., 1993).
Effects of cross-modal selective attention on the sensory periphery: Cochlear sensitivity is altered by selective attention
2012, NeuroscienceCitation Excerpt :In the present study, however, we first aim to replicate the finding of suppression of DPOAEs in response to the attended modality. The observed suppression of DPOAE amplitude to attended auditory stimuli is consistent with the findings from several studies by Michie et al. (1996). In their studies, Michie and colleagues sought to replicate findings from several groups using different attention and stimulus paradigms – all of which reported a relative decrease in the amplitude of ignored responses (Puel et al., 1988; Méric and Collet, 1992, 1994; Giard et al., 1994; Maison et al., 2001); this was the expected peripheral consequence of ignoring a stimulus as this effect is the generally accepted effect observed cortically (Woldorff et al., 1987; Johnson and Zatorre, 2005; Kauramäki et al., 2007).
Dichotic listening and otoacoustic emissions: Shared variance between cochlear function and dichotic listening performance in adults with normal hearing
2011, Brain and CognitionCitation Excerpt :Giard and colleagues found increased amplitude of evoked OAEs to the attended ear, using a two tone dichotic listening paradigm (Giard, Collet, Bouchet, & Pernier, 1994). However, the attention effect on OAEs is controversial as Michie and colleagues did not find increased strength of the emissions associated with attended stimuli, but a tend towards increased OAE to unattended stimuli (Michie, LePage, Solowij, Haller, & Terry, 1996). More recently, Maison and colleagues report better detection of probe tones in background noise, as they interpret as evidence for an influence of attention on the auditory peripheral hearing via the cortico-fugal pathways (Maison, Micheyl, & Collet, 1999, 2001).