Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
EFFECT OF VISUAL ATTENTION ON CONTRALATERAL
SUPPRESSION OF ACOUSTIC REFLEXES
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Mysore, India
Publication date: 2015-12-31
Corresponding author
Prashanth Prabhu
Prashanth Prabhu, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Naimisham Campus, Mysore, Karnataka, India – 570006, Tel: +91-8904353390, e-mail: prashanth.audio@gmail.com
Prashanth Prabhu, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Naimisham Campus, Mysore, Karnataka, India – 570006, Tel: +91-8904353390, e-mail: prashanth.audio@gmail.com
J Hear Sci 2015;5(4):26-32
KEYWORDS
visual attentionacoustic reflex thresholdacoustic reflex amplitudesuppressionefferent auditory system
ABSTRACT
Background:
Cortical functions such as attention can affect the functioning of the medial efferent auditory system. This study attempts to determine the effect of visual attention on contralateral suppression of acoustic reflexes.
Material and Methods:
Contralateral suppression of acoustic reflex threshold (CSART) and contralateral suppression of acoustic reflex amplitude (CSARA) were determined in 30 normal hearing individuals at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. CSART and CSARA were determined for four visual attention tasks: no attention, passive attention, and two active visual attention tasks.
Results:
Contralateral suppression of acoustic reflexes was enhanced in the active visual attention condition compared to the no visual attention condition. No significant difference was observed across gender in any of the conditions.
Conclusions:
Visual attention tasks can have a direct effect on the medial auditory efferent system and hence needs to be monitored. To enhance suppression a well-controlled active visual attention task should be used.
Cortical functions such as attention can affect the functioning of the medial efferent auditory system. This study attempts to determine the effect of visual attention on contralateral suppression of acoustic reflexes.
Material and Methods:
Contralateral suppression of acoustic reflex threshold (CSART) and contralateral suppression of acoustic reflex amplitude (CSARA) were determined in 30 normal hearing individuals at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. CSART and CSARA were determined for four visual attention tasks: no attention, passive attention, and two active visual attention tasks.
Results:
Contralateral suppression of acoustic reflexes was enhanced in the active visual attention condition compared to the no visual attention condition. No significant difference was observed across gender in any of the conditions.
Conclusions:
Visual attention tasks can have a direct effect on the medial auditory efferent system and hence needs to be monitored. To enhance suppression a well-controlled active visual attention task should be used.
REFERENCES (48)
1.
Giraud AL, Wable J, Chays A, Collet L, Chéry-Croze S. Influence of contralateral noise on distortion product latency in humans: is the medial olivocochlear efferent system involved? J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 102(4): 2219–27.
2.
Kumar UA, Vanaja CS. Functioning of olivocochlear bundle and speech perception in noise. Ear Hear, 2004; 25(2): 142–6.
3.
Reiter ER, Liberman MC. Efferent-mediated protection from acoustic overexposure: relation to slow effects of olivocochlear stimulation. J Neurophysiol, 1995; 73(2): 506–14.
4.
Rajan R. Protective functions of the efferent pathways to the mammalian cochlea: a review. In: Salve RJ (ed.). Noise Induced Hearing loss. St Louis: Mosby Yearbook; 1992; 429–44.
5.
Andéol G, Guillaume A, Micheyl C, Savel S, Pellieux L, Moulin A. Auditory efferents facilitate sound localization in noise in humans. J Neurosci, 2011; 31(18): 6759–63.
6.
Giard MH, Collet L, Bouchet P, Pernier J. Auditory selective attention in the human cochlea. Brain Res, 1994; 633(1–2): 353–6.
7.
de Boer J, Thornton ARD. Neural correlates of perceptual learning in the auditory brainstem: efferent activity predicts and reflects improvement at a speech-in-noise discrimination task. J Neurosci, 2008; 28(19): 4929–37.
8.
Scharf B, Magnan J, Collet L, Ulmer E, Chays A. On the role of the olivocochlear bundle in hearing: a case study. Hear Res, 1994; 75(1–2): 11–26.
9.
Buño W. Auditory nerve fiber activity influenced by contralateral ear sound stimulation. Exp Neurol, 1978; 59(1): 62–74.
10.
Kumar A, Barman A. Effect of efferent-induced changes on acoustical reflex. Int J Audiol, 2002; 41(2): 144–7.
11.
Warren EH, Liberman MC. Effects of contralateral sound on auditory-nerve responses. I. Contributions of cochlear efferents. Hear Res, 1989; 37(2): 89–104.
12.
Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Wen H, Szabo P, Cecola RP, Rigby P et al. Contralateral suppression of non-linear click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res, 1993; 71(1–2): 1–11.
13.
Froehlich P, Collet L, Morgon A. Transiently evoked otoacoustic emission amplitudes change with changes of directed attention. Physiol Behav, 1993; 53(4): 679–82.
14.
Maison S, Micheyl C, Collet L. Influence of focused auditory attention on cochlear activity in humans. Psychophysiology, 2001; 38(1): 35–40.
15.
Bulkin DA, Groh JM. Seeing sounds: visual and auditory interactions in the brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 2006; 16(4): 415–9.
16.
Busse L, Roberts KC, Crist RE, Weissman DH, Woldorff MG. The spread of attention across modalities and space in a multisensory object. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2005; 102: 18751–6.
17.
Zimmer U, Roberts KC, Harshbarger TB, Woldorff MG. Multisensory conflict modulates the spread of visual attention across a multisensory object. Neuroimage, 2010; 52(2): 606–16.
18.
Zimmer U, Itthipanyanan S, Grent-’t-Jong T, Woldorff MG. The electrophysiological time course of the interaction of stimulus conflict and the multisensory spread of attention. Eur J Neurosci, 2010; 31(10): 1744–54.
19.
Petersen SE, Posner MI. The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Annu Rev Neurosci, 2012; 35: 73–89.
20.
Battelli L, Pascual Leone A, Cavanagh P. The “when” pathway of the right parietal lobe. Trends Cogn Sci, 2007; 11: 204–10.
21.
Carrasco M. Visual attention: the past 25 years. Vision Res, 2011; 51(13): 1484–525.
22.
Corbetta M, Shulman GL. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2002; 3(3): 201–15.
23.
Facoetti A, Molteni M. Is attentional focusing an inhibitory process at distractor location? Cogn Brain Res, 2000; 10(1–2): 185–8.
24.
Bellocchi S, Muneaux M, Bastien-Toniazzo M, Ducrot S. I can read it in your eyes: what eye movements tell us about visuoattentional processes in developmental dyslexia. Res Dev Disabil, 2013; 34(1): 452–60.
25.
Reynolds JH, Heeger DJ. The normalization model of attention. Neuron, 2009; 61(2): 168–85.
26.
Ronconi L, Basso D, Gori S, Facoetti A. TMS on right frontal eye fields induces an inflexible focus of attention. Cereb Cortex, 2014; 24(2): 396–402.
27.
Gori S, Giora E, Stubbs DA. Perceptual compromise between apparent and veridical motion indices: the unchained-dots illusion. Perception, 2010; 39(6): 863–6.
28.
Gori S, Giora E, Yazdanbakhsh A, Mingolla E. A new motion illusion based on competition between two kinds of motion processing units: the accordion grating. Neural Net, 2011; 24(10): 1082–92.
29.
Gori S, Hamburger K, Spillmann L. Reversal of apparent rotation in the enigma-figure with and without motion adaptation and the effect of T-junctions. Vision Res, 2006; 46(19): 3267–73.
30.
Gori S, Yazdanbakhsh A. The riddle of the rotating-tilted-lines illusion. Perception, 2008; 37(4): 631–5.
31.
Yazdanbakhsh A, Gori S. A new psychophysical estimation of the receptive field size. Neurosci Lett, 2008; 438(2): 246–51.
32.
Ruzzoli M, Gori S, Pavan A, Pirulli C, Marzi CA, Miniussi C. The neural basis of the enigma illusion: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Neuropsychologia, 2011; 49(13): 3648–55.
33.
Gori S, Agrillo C, Dadda M, Bisazza A. Do fish perceive illusory motion? Sci Rep, 2014; 4: 6443.
34.
Kelly D. Frequency doubling in visual responses. J Opt Soc Am, 1966; 56: 1638–42.
35.
Gori S, Hamburger K. A new motion illusion: the rotatingtilted-lines illusion. Perception, 2006; 35(6): 853–7.
36.
Gori S, Cecchini P, Bigoni A, Molteni M, Facoetti A. Magnocellular-dorsal pathway and sub-lexical route in developmental dyslexia. Front Hum Neurosci, 2014; 8: 460.
37.
Gori S, Seitz AR, Ronconi L, Franceschini S, Facoetti A. Multiple causal links between magnocellular-dorsal pathway deficit and developmental dyslexia. Cereb Cortex, 2015; pii: bhv206 [Epub ahead of print].
38.
Ronconi L, Gori S, Giora E, Ruffino M, Molteni M, Facoetti A. Deeper attentional masking by lateral objects in children with autism. Brain Cogn, 2013; 82(2): 213–8.
39.
Ronconi L, Gori S, Ruffino M, Molteni M, Facoetti A. Zoomout attentional impairment in children with autism spectrum disorder. Cortex, 2013; 49(4): 1025–33.
40.
Dispaldro M, Leonard LB, Corradi N, Ruffino M, Bronte T, Facoetti A. Visual attentional engagement deficits in children with specific language impairment and their role in real-time language processing. Cortex, 2013; 49(8): 2126–39.
41.
Gori S, Mascheretti S, Giora E, Ronconi L, Ruffino M, Quadrelli E et al. The DCDC2 intron 2 deletion impairs illusory motion perception unveiling the selective role of magnocellular-dorsal stream in reading (dis)ability. Cereb Cortex, 2015; 25(6): 1685–95.
42.
Carhart R, Jerger JF. Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord, 1959; 24: 330–45.
43.
Yathiraj A, Vijayalakshmi CS. Phonemically balanced wordlist in Kannada. University of Mysore; 2005.
44.
Ferber-Viart C, Duclaux R, Collet L, Guyonnard F. Influence of auditory stimulation and visual attention on otoacoustic emissions. Physiol Behav, 1995; 57(6): 1075–9.
45.
Mountain DC. Changes in endolymphatic potential and crossed olivocochlear bundle stimulation alter cochlear mechanics. Science, 1980; 210(4465): 71–2.
46.
Brown MC, Nuttall AL. Efferent control of cochlear inner hair cell responses in the guinea-pig. J Physiol, 1984; 354: 625–46.
47.
Mulders WH, Robertson D. Evidence for direct cortical innervation of medial olivocochlear neurones in rats. Hear Res, 2000; 144(1–2): 65–72.
48.
Kumar UA, Methi R, Avinash MC. Test/retest repeatability of effect contralateral acoustic stimulation on the magnitudes of distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Laryngoscope, 2013; 123(2): 463–71.
Share
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
