Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(06): 366-373
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1728649
Research Article

Medial Olivocochlear Reflex Effect on Cochlear Response in Humans: Elicitor Side and Level

Abdullah M. Jamos
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
Mark E. Chertoff
2   Department of Hearing and Speech, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
,
Wafaa A. Kaf
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
John A. Ferraro
2   Department of Hearing and Speech, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Understanding the functional differences between crossed and uncrossed medial olivocochlear (MOC) neurons has been of interest to researchers for decades. Previous reports revealed conflicting results about which MOC pathway, crossed or uncrossed, is stronger in humans. Both crossed and uncrossed MOC neurons synapse at the base of the outer hair cells (OHCs) in each ear. OHCs generate the cochlear microphonic, which is a major contributor to the cochlear response (CR)

Purpose The current study investigated the effects of eliciting the crossed and uncrossed MOC reflex (MOCR) on CR in humans with three levels of noise.

Research Design Normal-hearing, young adults (n = 16) participated in this study. The CR was recorded using 500 Hz tone-burst stimuli presented at 80 dB nHL. To examine the crossed and uncrossed MOCR, CR was recorded without and with continuous ipsilateral or contralateral broadband noise (BBN) at three levels (40, 50, and 60 dB SPL).

Data Analysis Analysis of the CR was completed using the amplitude of the response extracted using fast Fourier transform. Statistical analysis was completed using repeated measures analysis of variance and post-hoc analysis.

Results Compared with baseline, the presentation of BBN, specifically contralaterally, resulted in CR enhancement with no significant difference as a function of the three BBN levels. Greater enhancement of the CR amplitude was observed with contralateral than ipsilateral BBN elicitor.

Conclusions The current findings suggest that a contralateral elicitor of the uncrossed MOC pathway results in a larger CR amplitude enhancement compared with an ipsilateral elicitor of the crossed MOC pathway, regardless of the elicitor level. Eliciting the MOCR appears to modulate the OHCs function. Furthermore, assessing the MOCR with the 500 Hz CR with BBN elicitors at moderate levels should separate its effects (i.e., increase response amplitude) from those associated with the middle ear muscle reflex (i.e., reduce response amplitude).

Keywords

electrocochleography - MOC reflex - outer hair cells - cochlear response - cochlear microphonic - middle ear muscle reflex

Note

Data were presented at the AudiologyNow in Boston, MA, March 2012 poster presentation. Received the Academy Research Conference (ARC) poster award. Boston, MA; March 2012.


Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publication History

Received: 10 August 2020

Accepted: 08 February 2021

Article published online:
03 November 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Rasmussen GL. The olivary peduncle and other fiber projections of the superior olivary complex. J Comp Neurol 1946; 84 (02) 141-219
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Maison SF, Liberman MC. Predicting vulnerability to acoustic injury with a noninvasive assay of olivocochlear reflex strength. J Neurosci 2000; 20 (12) 4701-4707
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Rajan R. Effect of electrical stimulation of the crossed olivocochlear bundle on temporary threshold shifts in auditory sensitivity. I. Dependence on electrical stimulation parameters. J Neurophysiol 1988; 60 (02) 549-568
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Giraud AL, Garnier S, Micheyl C, Lina G, Chays A, Chéry-Croze S. Auditory efferents involved in speech-in-noise intelligibility. Neuroreport 1997; 8 (07) 1779-1783
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Jamos AM, Hosier B, Davis S, Franklin TC. (In-Press). The role of the medial olivocochlear reflex in acceptable noise level in adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32 (03) 137-143
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Moore JK, Simmons DD, Guan Y. The human olivocochlear system: organization and development. Audiol Neurotol 1999; 4 (06) 311-325
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Liberman LD, Liberman MC. Cochlear efferent innervation is sparse in humans and decrease with age. J Neurosci 2019; 39 (48) 9560-9569
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Guinan Jr JJ. Olivocochlear efferents: anatomy, physiology, function, and the measurement of efferent effects in humans. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (06) 589-607
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Dallos P, He DZZ, Lin X, Sziklai I, Mehta S, Evans BN. Acetylcholine, outer hair cell electromotility, and the cochlear amplifier. J Neurosci 1997; 17 (06) 2212-2226
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Guinan Jr JJ, Cooper NP. Medial olivocochlear efferent inhibition of basilar-membrane responses to clicks: evidence for two modes of cochlear mechanical excitation. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 124 (02) 1080-1092
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Desmedt JE. Auditory-evoked potentials from cochlea to cortex as influenced by activation of the efferent olivo-cochlear bundle. J Acoust Soc Am 1962; 34 (08) 1478-1496
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Fex J. Efferent inhibition in the cochlea related to hair-cell dc activity: study of postsynaptic activity of the crossed olivocochlear fibres in the cat. J Acoust Soc Am 1967; 41 (03) 666-675
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Jamos AM, Kaf WA, Chertoff ME, Ferraro JA. Human medial olivocochlear reflex: contralateral activation effect on low and high frequency cochlear response. Hear Res 2020; 389: 107925
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Gifford ML, Guinan Jr JJ. Effects of electrical stimulation of medial olivocochlear neurons on ipsilateral and contralateral cochlear responses. Hear Res 1987; 29 (2-3): 179-194
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Sohmer H. A comparison of the efferent effects of the homolateral and contralateral olivo-cochlear bundles. Acta Otolaryngol 1966; 62 (01) 74-87
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Chertoff ME, Kamerer AM, Peppi M, Lichtenhan JT. An analysis of cochlear response harmonics: contribution of neural excitation. J Acoust Soc Am 2015; 138 (05) 2957-2963
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lichtenhan JT, Hartsock JJ, Gill RM, Guinan Jr JJ, Salt AN. The auditory nerve overlapped waveform (ANOW) originates in the cochlear apex. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2014; 15 (03) 395-411
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Chertoff ME, Amani-Taleshi D, Guo Y, Burkard R. The influence of inner hair cell loss on the instantaneous frequency of the cochlear microphonic. Hear Res 2002; 174 (1-2): 93-100
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Riazi M, Ferraro JA. Observations on mastoid versus ear canal recorded cochlear microphonic in newborns and adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19 (01) 46-55
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Tasaki I, Fernández C. Modification of cochlear microphonics and action potentials by KC1 solution and by direct currents. J Neurophysiol 1952; 15 (06) 497-512
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Moulin A, Collet L, Duclaux R. Contralateral auditory stimulation alters acoustic distortion products in humans. Hear Res 1993; 65 (1-2): 193-210
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Margolis RH. Detection of hearing impairment with the acoustic stapedius reflex. Ear Hear 1993; 14 (01) 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Keefe DH, Fitzpatrick D, Liu YW, Sanford CA, Gorga MP. Wideband acoustic-reflex test in a test battery to predict middle-ear dysfunction. Hear Res 2010; 263 (1-2): 52-65
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Froehlich P, Collet L, Valatx JL, Morgon A. Sleep and active cochlear micromechanical properties in human subjects. Hear Res 1993; 66 (01) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Ferraro JA, Durrant JD. Electrocochleography in the evaluation of patients with Ménière's disease/endolymphatic hydrops. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (01) 45-68
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Gisselsson L, Orebro O. Effect on microphonics of acetylcholine injected into the endolymphatic space. Acta Otolaryngol 1960; 51 (05) 636-638
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Zhang F, Boettcher FA, Sun XM. Contralateral suppression of distortion product otoacoustic emissions: effect of the primary frequency in Dpgrams. Int J Audiol 2007; 46 (04) 187-195
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Konishi T, Slepian JZ. Effects of the electrical stimulation of the crossed olivocochlear bundle on cochlear potentials recorded with intracochlear electrodes in guinea pigs. J Acoust Soc Am 1971; 49 (06) 1762-1769
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sridhar TS, Liberman MC, Brown MC, Sewell WF. A novel cholinergic “slow effect” of efferent stimulation on cochlear potentials in the guinea pig. J Neurosci 1995; 15 (5 Pt 1): 3667-3678
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Marks KL, Siegel JH. Differentiating middle ear and medial olivocochlear effects on transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2017; 18 (04) 529-542
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Hurley AE, Wen H, Kemp DT. Binaural noise suppresses linear click-evoked otoacoustic emissions more than ipsilateral or contralateral noise. Hear Res 1995; 87 (1-2): 96-103
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Lilaonitkul W, Guinan Jr JJ. Human medial olivocochlear reflex: effects as functions of contralateral, ipsilateral, and bilateral elicitor bandwidths. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2009; 10 (03) 459-470
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Henin S, Long GR, Thompson S. Wideband detection of middle ear muscle activation using swept-tone distortion product otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 136 (01) 272-283
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Liberman MC, Brown MC. Physiology and anatomy of single olivocochlear neurons in the cat. Hear Res 1986; 24 (01) 17-36
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Bodian D, Gucer G. Denervation study of synapses of organ of Corti of old world monkeys. J Comp Neurol 1980; 192 (04) 785-796
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Thompson GC, Thompson AM. Olivocochlear neurons in the squirrel monkey brainstem. J Comp Neurol 1986; 254 (02) 246-258
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Brown MC. Single-unit labeling of medial olivocochlear neurons: the cochlear frequency map for efferent axons. J Neurophysiol 2014; 111 (11) 2177-2186
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Cheatham MA. Growth of suppression in the cochlear potentials. Hear Res 1985; 18 (03) 291-294
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Cheatham MA, Dallos P. Two-tone interactions in the cochlear microphonic. Hear Res 1982; 8 (01) 29-48
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Remond MC, Harrison RV, Legouix JP. A comparison of compound action potential and cochlear microphonic two-tone suppression in the guinea pig. Hear Res 1982; 8 (01) 83-91
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar