Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10(07): 371-378
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748509
Original Article

Attention Effects on Distortion-Product Otoacoustic Emissions with Contralateral Speech Stimuli

Genaya Kae Timpe-Syverson
Towson University Speech-Language-Hearing Clinic, Towson, Maryland
,
T. Newell Decker
Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of selective attention on the distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) level through the use of environmentally meaningful, contralateral auditory stimuli. Four different conditions were used for measurement: quiet, contralateral noise, contralateral speech (unattended), and contralateral speech (attended). A statistically significant suppression effect for both the noise and speech conditions was found. However, there was no support for an auditory selective attention effect on the distortion-product amplitude.

Abbreviations: ABR = auditory brainstem response, ANOVA = analysis of variance, DPOAEs = distortion-product otoacoustic emissions, IHC = inner hair cell, MES = medial efferent system, OAEs = otoacoustic emissions, OCB = olivochlear bundle, OHC = outer hair cell, SOAEs = spontaneous otoacoustic emissions, TEOAEs = transient evoked otoacoustic emissions

Key Words

Attention - contralateral speech - contralateral suppression - distortion-product otoacoustic emissions


Publication History

Article published online:
02 May 2022

© 1999. 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

  • American National Standards Institute. (1996). American National Standard Specifications for Audiometers. New York: Acoustical Society of America.
  • Avan P, Bonfils P. (1992). Analysis of possible interactions of an attentional task with cochlear micromechanics. Hear Res 57: 269–275.
  • Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Wen H, Szabo P, Cecola RP, Rigby P, Jackson DF. (1993). Contralateral suppression of non-linear click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res 71: 1–11.
  • Brown MC, Nuttall AL. (1984). Efferent control of cochlear inner hair cell responses in the guinea pig. J Physiol 354: 625–646.
  • Brownell WE, Bader CR, Bertrand D, Ribaupierre YD. (1985). Evoked mechanical responses of isolated cochlear outer hair cells. Science 227: 194–196.
  • Collet L, Kemp DT, Veuillet E, Duclaux R, Moulin A, Morgon A. (1990). Effect of contralateral auditory stimuli on active cochlear micro-mechanical properties in human subjects. Hear Res 43: 251–262.
  • Ferber-Viart C, Duclaux R, Collet L, Guyonnard F. (1995). Influence of auditory stimulation and visual attention on otoacoustic emissions. Physiol Behav 57: 1075–1079.
  • Froehlich P, Collet L, Morgon A. (1993). Transiently evoked otoacoustic emission amplitudes change with changes of directed attention. Physiol Behav 53: 679–682.
  • Galambos R. (1956). Suppression of auditory nerve activity by stimulation of efferent fibers to cochlea. J Neurophysiol 19: 424–437.
  • Gaskill SA, Brown AM. (1992). The behavior of the acoustic distortion product, 2f1–f2, from the human ear and its relation to auditory sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am 91: 1571–1575.
  • Giard MH, Collet L, Bouchet P, Pernier J. (1994). Auditory selective attention in the human cochlea. Brain Res 633: 353–356.
  • Giraud AL, Collet L, Chery-Croze S. (1997). Suppression of otoacoustic emission is unchanged after several minutes of contralateral acoustic stimulation. Hear Res 109: 78–82.
  • Hernandez-Peon R, Scherrer H, Jouvet M. (1956). Modification of electric activity in cochlear nucleus during “attention” in unanesthetized cats. Science 123: 331–332.
  • Hood LJ, Berlin CI, Hurley A, Cecola RP, Bell B. (1996). Contralateral suppression of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans: intensity effects. Hear Res 101: 113–118.
  • Lonsbury-Martin BL, Harris FP, Hawkins MD, Stagner BB, Martin GK. (1990). Distortion product emissions in humans. I: basic properties in normally hearing subjects. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 99: 3–14.
  • Lukas JH. (1980). Human auditory attention: the olivocochlear bundle may function as a peripheral filter. Psychophysiology 17: 444–452.
  • Meric C, Collet L. (1992). Visual attention and evoked otoacoustic emissions: a slight but real effect. Int J Psychophysiol 12: 233–235.
  • Meric C, Collet L. (1994a). Attention and otoacoustic emissions: a review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 18: 215–222.
  • Meric C, Collet L. (1994b). Differential effects of visual attention on spontaneous and evoked otoacoustic emissions. Int J Psychophysiol 17: 281–289.
  • Michie PT, LePage EL, Solowij N, Haller M, Terry L. (1996). Evoked otoacoustic emissions and auditory selective attention. Hear Res 98: 54–67.
  • Moulin A, Collet L, Duclaux R. (1993). Contralateral auditory stimulation alters acoustic distortion products in humans. Hear Res 65: 193–210.
  • Mountain DC. (1980). Changes in endolymphatic potential and crossed olivocochlear bundle stimulation alter cochlear mechanics. Science 210: 71–72.
  • Nieschall Μ, Beneking R, Stoll W. (1997). Increased amplitude of distortion product emissions in the human caused by contralateral low intensity acoustic stimulation. HNO 45: 378–384.
  • Papanicolaou AC, Raz N, Loring DW, Eisenberg HM. (1986). Brain stem evoked response suppression during speech production. Brain Lang 27: 50–55.
  • Probst R, Antonelli C, Pieren C. (1990). Method and preliminary results of measurements of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in normal and pathological ears. Ad Audiol 7: 117–125.
  • Puel JL, Bonfils P, Pujol R. (1988). Selective attention modifies active micromechanical properties of the cochlea Brain Res 447: 380–383.
  • Puel JL, Rebillard G. (1990). Effect of contralateral sound stimulation on the distortion product 2F1 –F2: evidence that the medial efferent system is involved. J Acoust Soc Am 87: 1630–1635.
  • Rajan R, Johnstone BM. (1988). Binaural acoustic stimulation exercises protective effects at the cochlea that mimic the effects of electrical stimulation of an auditory efferent pathway. Brain Res 459: 241–255.
  • Ryan AF. (1997). New views of cochlear function. In: Robinette MS, Glattke TJ, eds. Otoacoustic Emissions: Clinical Applications New York: Thieme, 22–45.
  • Veuillet E, Collet L, Duclaux R. (1991). Effect of contralateral acoustic stimulation on active cochlear micromechanical properties in human subjects: dependence on stimulus variables. J Neurophysiol 65: 724–735.
  • Veuillet E, Duverdy-Bertholon F, Collet L. (1996). Effect of contralateral acoustic stimulation on the growth of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans. Hear Res 93: 128–135.
  • Williams DM, Brown AM. (1995). Contralateral and ipsi-lateral suppression of the 2f1–f2 distortion product in human subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 97: 1130–1140.