2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2007.08.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of subject task on contralateral suppression of click evoked otoacoustic emissions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

10
95
3

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 78 publications
(108 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
10
95
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The interaction is significant for amplitude suppression only at the lower CEOAE stimulus level and more significant for the I/O suppression measure. This level dependence of the interaction of the contralateral suppression measure is very similar to that observed in an earlier study in our laboratory (de Boer and Thornton, 2007) and is likely to reflect the characteristic compressive nonlinearity of the cochlear amplification mechanism. The stronger effect found for the I/O slope may result from the fact that this measure is more directly and exclusively dependent on the gain of this amplification mechanism, which underlies EOAE generation, than the CEOAE amplitude.…”
Section: Physiological Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The interaction is significant for amplitude suppression only at the lower CEOAE stimulus level and more significant for the I/O suppression measure. This level dependence of the interaction of the contralateral suppression measure is very similar to that observed in an earlier study in our laboratory (de Boer and Thornton, 2007) and is likely to reflect the characteristic compressive nonlinearity of the cochlear amplification mechanism. The stronger effect found for the I/O slope may result from the fact that this measure is more directly and exclusively dependent on the gain of this amplification mechanism, which underlies EOAE generation, than the CEOAE amplitude.…”
Section: Physiological Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…In particular, contralateral suppression of EOAEs was enhanced when attention was directed to the contralateral ear (Maison et al, 2001) and decreased when attention was directed toward the ipsilateral ear (de Boer and Thornton, 2007). It is possible that, in our results, MOCB activity reflected the extent or focus of attention paid by listeners to the ipsilateral sound stimuli.…”
Section: Mocb and Attentionmentioning
confidence: 61%
“…Furthermore, our nSFOAE measures were perstimulatory-made during the presentation of the OAE-evoking stimulus-rather than after its offset, as is the case for toneevoked and click-evoked OAEs. This may have provided an advantage over some previous procedures (e.g., de Boer and Thornton, 2007;Ferber-Viart et al, 1995;Giard et al, 1994;Harkrider and Bowers, 2009;Meric and Collet, 1994;Puel et al, 1988).…”
Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The MOC effect was evoked without any attempt to monitor or control the subject's attention toward the contralateral noise activator. This may be relevant because the MOC effect can be modulated by attention (de Boer & Thornton, 2007;Froehlich et al, 1993;Harkrider & Bowers, 2009;Maison et al, 2001). The directions of reported attention effects are not well defined and are inconsistent; Harkrider and Bowers (2009) demonstrated decreases in the MOC reflex, whereas earlier studies showed an increase in MOC effects (Maison et al, 2001) with attention.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…MOC effects have been linked to enhanced listening in noise and protection from acoustic trauma (Froehlich, Collet, & Morgon, 1993;Giard, Collet, Bouchet, & Pernier, 1994;Giraud et al, 1997;Kumar & Vanaja, 2004;Maison & Liberman, 2000). These effects can be modulated by attention and are task dependent (de Boer & Thornton, 2007;Froehlich et al, 1993;Maison, Micheyl, & Collet, 2001;Meric, Micheyl, & Collet, 1996).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%