Evoked otoacoustic emissions and auditory selective attention

Michie, Patricia T.; LePage, Eric L.; Solowij, Nadia; Haller, Michael; Terry, L.

doi:10.1016/0378-5955(96)00059-7

Cited by 36 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Both in combination suggest that auditory attention enhances suppression in one ear when listening to the contralateral ear, and may decrease suppression when listening to the ipsilateral ear. The fact that Michie et al (1996) did not find an effect of auditory attention on EOAEs in the presence of contralateral noise is not incompatible with the present results, as they compared attention conditions both focussed on the same ear. Giard et al (1994) reported an enhanced EOAE amplitude (without contralateral noise) when attention was focussed on the ipsilateral ear, as compared to attention towards the contralateral ear.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 78%

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

Boer

Thornton

2007

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 78%

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

Boer

Thornton

2007

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Physiological evidence indicates that selective attention (e.g., focusing on one tone while ignoring another tone) modulates the activity of the outer hair cells within the cochlea to facilitate processing of the target stimuli (de Boer & Thornton, 2007;Giard, Collet, Bouchet, & Pernier, 1994;Meric & Collet, 1992), although the generality of this phenomenon has been questioned (Michie, LePage, Solowij, Haller, & Terry, 1996). Similar attention-related changes of the ABR have also been shown (Althen, Grimm, & Escera, 2011;Hoormann, Falkenstein, & Hohnsbein, 1994;Galbraith & Arroyo, 1993;Bauer & Bayles, 1990), although some attempts have failed (Hirschhorn & Michie, 1990) and the effect appears to have a limited generality (Hoormann, Falkenstein, & Hohnsbein, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Working Memory Capacity and Visual–Verbal Cognitive Load Modulate Auditory–Sensory Gating in the Brainstem: Toward a Unified View of Attention

Sörqvist

Stenfelt

Rönnberg

2012

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

135

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract■ Two fundamental research questions have driven attention research in the past: One concerns whether selection of relevant information among competing, irrelevant, information takes place at an early or at a late processing stage; the other concerns whether the capacity of attention is limited by a central, domain-general pool of resources or by independent, modality-specific pools. In this article, we contribute to these debates by showing that the auditoryevoked brainstem response (an early stage of auditory processing) to task-irrelevant sound decreases as a function of central working memory load (manipulated with a visual-verbal version of the n-back task). Furthermore, individual differences in central/ domain-general working memory capacity modulated the magnitude of the auditory-evoked brainstem response, but only in the high working memory load condition. The results support a unified view of attention whereby the capacity of a late/central mechanism (working memory) modulates early precortical sensory processing. ■

show abstract

“…There has been a long-lasting debate on whether attention modulates processing of sounds as early as in the subcortical structures of the auditory pathway (Hernández-Peón et al 1956;Jane et al 1965;Lukas 1980;Maison et al 2001;Michie et al 1996;Näätänen 1992;Oatman and Anderson 1977;Ryan and Miller 1977). Although functional MRI (fMRI) studies in humans have ascertained that attention has a strong effect on cortical activity elicited by sounds (Grady et al 1997;Jäncke et al 1999;Johnson and Zatorre 2006;Petkov et al 2004;Rinne et al 2005Rinne et al , 2007, there is no unambiguous evidence that attention modulates subcortical auditory activity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory Selective Attention Modulates Activation of Human Inferior Colliculus

Rinne

Balk²,

Koistinen³

et al. 2008

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rinne T, Balk MH, Koistinen S, Autti T, Alho K, Sams M. Auditory selective attention modulates activation of human inferior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 100: 3323-3327, 2008. First published October 15, 2008 doi:10.1152/jn.90607.2008. Selective auditory attention powerfully modulates neural activity in the human auditory cortex (AC). In contrast, the role of attention in subcortical auditory processing is not well established. Here, we used functional MRI (fMRI) to examine activation of the human inferior colliculus (IC) during strictly controlled auditory attention tasks. The IC is an obligatory midbrain nucleus of the ascending auditory pathway with diverse internal and external connections. The IC also receives a massive descending projection from the AC, suggesting that cortical processes affect IC operations. In this study, 21 subjects selectively attended to left-ear or right-ear sounds and ignored sounds delivered to the other ear. IC activations depended on the direction of attention, indicating that auditory processing in the human IC is not only determined by acoustic input but also by the current behavioral goals. I N T R O D U C T I O NThere has been a long-lasting debate on whether attention modulates processing of sounds as early as in the subcortical structures of the auditory pathway (Hernández-Peón et al. 1956;Jane et al. 1965;Lukas 1980;Maison et al. 2001;Michie et al. 1996;Näätänen 1992;Oatman and Anderson 1977;Ryan and Miller 1977). Although functional MRI (fMRI) studies in humans have ascertained that attention has a strong effect on cortical activity elicited by sounds (Grady et al. 1997;Jäncke et al. 1999;Johnson and Zatorre 2006;Petkov et al. 2004;Rinne et al. 2005Rinne et al. , 2007, there is no unambiguous evidence that attention modulates subcortical auditory activity. Here we focus on the bilateral inferior colliculus of the midbrain where the ascending parallel auditory pathways converge before continuing to the auditory cortex (AC) via the thalamus. The inferior colliculus (IC) also receives substantial corticofugal projections from the AC (Winer 2006). The functional significance of the corticofugal pathway is not well understood, but stimulation of cortical neurons has been shown to modulate response properties of IC neurons (Suga and Ma 2003). Because the IC has been implicated in attention in some animal studies (Jane et al. 1965;Ryan and Miller 1977), it is possible that the corticofugal projections serve to mediate attention effects to the IC (Suga and Ma 2003).We presented asynchronous left and right ear broadband noise bursts to our human subjects at a rapid rate (Fig. 1A).Temporal regularity of the noise bursts was manipulated so that there was a distinct pitch difference between the left and right ear sounds (Griffiths et al. 2001). Subjects were required to selectively attend to sounds at the designated ear to detect frequent (about once per second) pitch increases or decreases among the attended sounds and to indicate, by pressing one of the two buttons, the direction of ...

show abstract

Evoked otoacoustic emissions and auditory selective attention

Cited by 36 publications

References 65 publications

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

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

Working Memory Capacity and Visual–Verbal Cognitive Load Modulate Auditory–Sensory Gating in the Brainstem: Toward a Unified View of Attention

Auditory Selective Attention Modulates Activation of Human Inferior Colliculus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About