Figure 2 - uploaded by Yang Zhang
Content may be subject to copyright.
Grand average waveforms for event-related potential (ERP) responses to standard and deviant stimuli in the passive (MMN) condition, and the difference between the two (deviantstandard). Waveforms were averaged across frontal, mid-frontal, central and mid-central sites. Panel (A): left ear, no contralateral acoustic stimulation (CAS). Panel (B): left ear, with CAS. Panel (C): right ear, no CAS. Panel (D): right ear, with CAS.

Grand average waveforms for event-related potential (ERP) responses to standard and deviant stimuli in the passive (MMN) condition, and the difference between the two (deviantstandard). Waveforms were averaged across frontal, mid-frontal, central and mid-central sites. Panel (A): left ear, no contralateral acoustic stimulation (CAS). Panel (B): left ear, with CAS. Panel (C): right ear, no CAS. Panel (D): right ear, with CAS.

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
This electrophysiological study investigated the role of the medial olivocochlear (MOC) efferents in listening in noise. Both ears of eleven normal-hearing adult participants were tested. The physiological tests consisted of transient-evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) inhibition and the measurement of cortical event-related potentials (ERPs). The...

Contexts in source publication

Context 1
... average waveforms of the MMNs obtained for the two conditions are presented in Figure 2. A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed after selecting electrodes from the frontal, midfrontal, central and mid-central locations of the scalp, where the MMN was robust. ...
Context 2
... average waveforms of the MMNs obtained for the two conditions are presented in Figure 2. A repeated-measures ANOVA was performed after selecting electrodes from the frontal, mid-frontal, central and mid-central locations of the scalp, where the MMN was robust. ...

Citations

... A recent investigation by Rao, Koerner, Madsen, and Zhang (2020) in adults reported no significant effect of contralateral MOCR activation on auditory cortical responses or on a nonsense word recognition in noise task. They concluded that the MOCR may not play a primary role in higher level processing of speech in noise perception. ...
Article
Children who have listening difficulties (LiD) despite having normal audiometry are often diagnosed as having an auditory processing disorder. A lack of evidence regarding involvement of specific auditory mechanisms has limited development of effective treatments for these children. Here, we examined electrophysiologic evidence for brainstem pathway mechanisms in children with and without defined LiD. We undertook a prospective controlled study of 132 children aged 6-14 years with normal pure tone audiometry, grouped into LiD (n = 63) or Typically Developing (TD; n = 69) based on scores on the Evaluation of Children's Listening and Processing Skills (ECLiPS), a validated caregiver report. The groups were matched on age at test, sex, race, and ethnicity. Neither group had diagnoses of major neurologic disorder, intellectual disability, or brain injuries. Both groups received a test battery including a measure of receptive speech perception against distractor speech, Listening in Spatialized Noise - Sentences (LiSN-S), along with multiple neurophysiologic measures that tap afferent and efferent auditory subcortical pathways. Group analysis showed that participants with LiD performed significantly poorer on all subtests of the LiSN-S. The LiD group had significantly greater wideband middle ear muscle reflex (MEMR) growth functions in the left ear, and shorter Wave III and Wave V latencies in auditory brainstem responses (ABR). Across individual participants, shorter latency ABR Wave V correlated significantly with poorer parent report of LiD (ECLiPS composite). Greater MEMR growth functions also correlated with poorer ECLiPS scores and reduced LiSN-S talker advantage. The LiD and TD groups had equivalent summating potentials, compound action potentials, envelope-following responses, and binaurally activated medial olivocochlear reflexes. In conclusion, there was no evidence for auditory synaptopathy for LiD. Evidence for brainstem differences in the LiD group was interpreted as increased central gain, with shorter ABR Wave III and V latencies and steeper MEMR growth curves. These differences were related to poorer parent report and speech perception in competing speech ability.
... A recent investigation by Rao, Koerner, Madsen, and Zhang (2020) in adults reported no significant effect of contralateral MOCR activation on auditory cortical responses or on a nonsense word recognition in noise task. They concluded that the MOCR may not play a primary role in higher level processing of speech in noise perception. ...
Preprint
Children who have listening difficulties (LiD) despite having normal audiometry are often diagnosed as having an auditory processing disorder (APD). A lack of evidence regarding involvement of specific auditory mechanisms has limited development of effective treatments for these children. Here, we examined brainstem pathway mechanisms in children with and without defined LiD. We undertook a prospective controlled study of 132 children aged 6-14 years with normal pure tone audiometry, grouped into LiD (n=63) or Typically Developing (TD; n=69) based on scores on the Evaluation of Childrens Listening and Processing Skills (ECLiPS), a validated caregiver report. The groups were matched on age at test, sex, race, and ethnicity. Neither group had diagnoses of major neurologic disorder, intellectual disability, or brain injuries. Both groups received a test battery designed to measure receptive speech perception against distractor speech, Listening in Spatialized Noise - Sentences (LiSN-S), along with multiple neurophysiologic measures that tap afferent and efferent auditory subcortical pathways. Group analysis showed that participants with LiD performed significantly more poorly on all subtests of the LiSN-S. The LiD group had significantly steeper wideband middle ear muscle reflex (MEMR) growth functions and shorter Wave III, Wave V, and I-V interpeak latencies in their auditory brainstem responses (ABR). Across individual participants, shorter latency ABR Wave V correlated significantly with poorer parent report of LiD (ECLiPS composite). Steeper MEMR growth functions also correlated with poorer ECLiPS scores and reduced LiSN-S talker advantage. The LiD and TD groups had equivalent summating potentials, compound action potentials, envelope-following responses (EFR), and binaurally activated medial olivocochlear reflexes (MOCR). In conclusion, there was no evidence for auditory synaptopathy or lower brainstem dysfunction for LiD. Evidence for higher brainstem differences between groups showed that the LiD group had increased efferent control or central gain, with shorter ABR Wave III and V latencies and steeper MEMR growth curves. These differences were related to poorer parent report and speech perception ability.
... Furthermore, in these papers, the procedures vary significantly. For example, the recent study by Rao et al. [40] showed no connection between P3 and OAE suppression when listening in noise. The present results might be more closely related to a study by Dragicevic et al. [17] who showed some correlations in the modulation of OAEs and ERPs, although these were of a different kind than in the present study. ...
... Even though we ensured good quality measurements with high SNRs, we did not find a difference between tasks (unlike in some previous experiments). This is in line with some other studies that failed to confirm earlier reported effects on the MOC reflex, for example, there are studies that have failed to show any connection between the MOC reflex and gender or laterality [46], adaptation to noise and central auditory processing [39,40], auditory processing disorders [47], tinnitus [48], or sickle cell disease [49]. Specifically, it has been suggested that previous work on auditory processing disorders probably did not fulfill appropriate SNR criteria in order to ensure reliability [47]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The medial olivocochlear (MOC) system is thought to be responsible for modulation of peripheral hearing through descending (efferent) pathways. This study investigated the connection between peripheral hearing function and conscious attention during two different modality tasks, auditory and visual. Peripheral hearing function was evaluated by analyzing the amount of suppression of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) by contralateral acoustic stimulation (CAS), a well-known effect of the MOC. Simultaneously, attention was evaluated by event-related potentials (ERPs). Although the ERPs showed clear differences in processing of auditory and visual tasks, there were no differences in the levels of OAE suppression. We also analyzed OAEs for the highest magnitude resonant mode signal detected by the matching pursuit method, but again did not find a significant effect of task, and no difference in noise level or number of rejected trials. However, for auditory tasks, the amplitude of the P3 cognitive wave negatively correlated with the level of OAE suppression. We conclude that there seems to be no change in MOC function when performing different modality tasks, although the cortex still remains able to modulate some aspects of MOC activity.
Article
The medial olivocochlear (MOC) system is thought to be responsible for modulation of peripheral hearing through descending (efferent) pathways. This study investigates the connection between peripheral hearing function and auditory attention tasks of different degrees of difficulty. Peripheral hearing function was evaluated by analyzing the amount of change in otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) by contralateral acoustic stimulation (CAS), a well-known effect of the MOC system. Simultaneously, levels of attention were evaluated by event-related potentials (ERPs). The ERPs showed clear differences in processing tasks of different difficulty, but paradoxically there was no difference in the amount of OAE change brought about by CAS. There was also no effect on OAE latency, nor was there any difference in noise level or number of rejected trials. However, we observed that the changes in OAEs by CAS for easy and hard tasks were correlated with the magnitude of the P3 wave in the ERP. This suggests there might be some sort of mutual compensation mechanism – presently unknown – between periphery and cortex.
Article
Full-text available
Being able to pick out particular sounds, such as speech, against a background of other sounds represents one of the key tasks performed by the auditory system. Understanding how this happens is important because speech recognition in noise is particularly challenging for older listeners and for people with hearing impairments. Central to this ability is the capacity of neurons to adapt to the statistics of sounds reaching the ears, which helps to generate noise-tolerant representations of sounds in the brain. In more complex auditory scenes, such as a cocktail party — where the background noise comprises other voices, sound features associated with each source have to be grouped together and segregated from those belonging to other sources. This depends on precise temporal coding and modulation of cortical response properties when attending to a particular speaker in a multi-talker environment. Furthermore, the neural processing underlying auditory scene analysis is shaped by experience over multiple timescales.