Olivocochlear activity and temporary threshold shift-susceptibility in humans

Laryngoscope

Volumn 115, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 2021-2028

  Wagner, W ^a   Heppelmann, G ^a   Kuehn, M ^b   Tisch, M ^b   Vonthein, R ^a   Zenner, H P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b Military Hospital German Forces   (Germany)

Author keywords

Contralateral suppression; Noise vulnerability; Olivocochlear efferents; Otoacoustic emissions; Temporary threshold shift

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDIOGRAPHY; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA; CONTROLLED STUDY; EFFERENT NERVE; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MEASUREMENT; NERVE FIBER; NOISE; OLIVARY NUCLEUS; OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE; ADOLESCENT; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEARING; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY;

ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE TESTS; ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEA; HEARING; HUMANS; MALE; NOISE;

EID: 33644699516     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.MLG.0000181463.16591.A7     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Warr WB, Guinan JJ, White JS. Organization of the efferent fibers: the lateral and medial olivocochlear systems. In: Altschuler RA, Hoffman DW, eds. Neurobiology of hearing: the cochlea. New York: Raven Press;1986: 333-348.
2. Williams DM, Brown AN. Contralateral and ipsilateral suppression of the 2f1-f2 distortion product in human subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97:1130-1140.
3. Lisowska G, Smurzynski J, Morawski K, et al. Influence of contralateral stimulation by two-tone complexes, narrow-band and broad-band noise signals on 2f1-f2 distortion product otoacoustic emission levels in humans. Acta Otolaryngol 2002;122:613-619.
4. Cody AR, Johnstone BM. Temporary threshold shift modified by binaural acoustic stimulation. Hear Res 1982;6:199-206.
5. Rajan R, Johnstone BM. Electrical stimulation of cochlear efferents at the round window reduces auditory desensitization in guinea pigs. I. Dependence on electrical stimulation parameters. Hear Res 1988;36:53-74.
6. Hildesheimer M, Makai E, Muchnik C, Rubenstein M. The influence of the efferent system on acoustic overstimulation. Hear Res 1990;43:263-268.
7. Patuzzi RB, Thompson ML. Cochlear efferent neurones and protection against acoustic trauma: protection of outer hair cell receptor current and interanimal variability. Hear Res 1991;54:45-58.
8. Takeyama M, Kusakari J, Nishikawa N, Wada T. The effect of crossed olivo-cochlear bundle stimulation on acoustic trauma. Acta Otolaryngol 1992;112:205-209.
9. Rajan R. Involvement of cochlear efferent pathways in protective effects elicited with binaural loud sound exposure in cats. J Neurophysiol 1995;74:582-597.
10. Rajan R. Frequency and loss dependence of the protective effects of the olivocochlear pathway in cats. J Neurophysiol 1995;74:598-615.
11. Rajan R. Centrifugal pathways protect hearing sensitivity at the cochlea in noisy environments that exacerbate the damage induced by loud sound. J Neurosci 2000;20:6684-6693.
12. Zheng XY, McFadden SL, Ding DL, Henderson D. Cochlear de-efferentiation and impulse noise-induced acoustic trauma in the chinchilla. Hear Res 2000;144:187-195.
13. Maison SF, Liberman MC. Predicting vulnerability to acoustic injury with a noninvasive assay of olivocochlear reflex strength. J Neurosci 2000;20:4701-4707.
14. Luebke AE, Foster PK. Variation in inter-animal susceptibility to noise damage is associated with alpha9 acetylcholine receptor subunit expression level. J Neurosci 2002;22:4241-4247.
15. Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Long-term sound conditioning enhances cochlear sensitivity. J Neurophysiol 1999;82:863-873.
16. Yoshida N, Liberman MC. Sound conditioning reduces noise-induced permanent threshold shift in mice. Hear Res 2000;148:213-219.
17. Müller J, Janssen T, Heppelmann G, Wagner W Relationship between fine-structure, contralateral suppression, and ipsilateral adaptation of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in humans. J Acoust Soc Am. In press.
18. Boege P, Janssen T. Pure-tone threshold estimation from extrapolated distortion product emission I/O-functions in normal and cochlear hearing loss ears. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;111:1810-8.
19. Ward WD. The concept of susceptibility to hearing loss. J Occup Med 1965;12:595-607.
20. Bienvenue GR, Violon-Singer JR, Michael PL. Loudness discrimination index (LDI): a test for the early detection of noise susceptible individuals. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1977;38:333.
21. Humes LE. Review of four new indices of susceptibility to noise-induced hearing loss. J Occup Med 1977;19:116-118.
22. Johannson B, Kylin B, Langfy M. Acoustic reflex as a test of individual susceptibility to noise: a preliminary report. Acta Otolaryngol 1967;64:256-262.
23. Glorig A, Ward D, Nixon AB. Damage risk criteria and noise-induced hearing Loss. Arch Otolaryngol 1961;74:413-423.
24. Engdahl B. Effects of noise and exercise on distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res 1996;93:72-82.
25. Veuillet E, Martin V, Suc B, Vesson JF, et al. Otoacoustic emissions and medial olivocochlear suppression during auditory recovery from acoustic trauma in humans. Acta Otolaryngol 2001;121:278-283.
26. Scharf B, Magnan J, Collet L, et al. On the role of the olivocochlear bundle in hearing. A case study. Hear Res 1994;75(1-2):11-26.
27. Williams EA, Brookes GB, Prasher DK. Effects of olivocochlear bundle section of otoacoustic emissions in humans: efferent effects in comparison with control subjects. Acta Otolaryngol 1994;114:121-129.
28. Zennaro O, Erre JP, Aran JM, Dauman R. Short-term effectiveness of medial efferents does not predict susceptibility to temporary threshold shift in the guinea pig. Acta Otolaryngol 1998;118:681-684.
29. Frank G, Kossl M. Acoustical and electrical biasing of the cochlea partition. Effects on the acoustic two tone distortion f2-f1 and 2f1-f2. Hear Res 1997;113(1-2):57-68.
30. Wagner W, Staud I, Frank G, et al. Noise exposure in magnetic resonance imaging: No risk for sensorineural function but increased amplitude variability of distortion products of otoacoustic emissions. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1216-1223.
31. Plinkert PK, Hemmert W, Wagner W, et al. Monitoring noise susceptibility: sensitivity of otoacoustic emissions and subjective audiometry. Br J Audiol 1999;33:367-380.