4.4 Review

The role of the medial olivocochlear reflex in psychophysical masking and intensity resolution in humans: a review

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 125, Issue 6, Pages 2279-2308

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00672.2020

Keywords

auditory nerve; basilar membrane mechanics; intensity resolution; masking; olivocochlear system

Funding

  1. NIH/NIDCD [K23 DC-014752]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review discusses the putative role of the medial olivocochlear reflex in psychophysical masking and intensity resolution in humans. Studies on estimates of MOC strength and effects of olivocochlear bundle resection are examined to determine the reflex's impact on psychophysical perception. However, current research is inconclusive in definitively confirming or refuting the role of the MOC reflex in masking and intensity resolution.
This review addresses the putative role of the medial olivocochlear (MOC) reflex in psychophysical masking and intensity resolution in humans. A framework for interpreting psychophysical results in terms of the expected influence of the MOC reflex is introduced. This framework is used to review the effects of a precursor or contralateral acoustic stimulation on 1) simultaneous masking of brief tones, 2) behavioral estimates of cochlear gain and frequency resolution in forward masking, 3) the buildup and decay of forward masking, and 4) measures of intensity resolution. Support, or lack thereof, for a role of the MOC reflex in psychophysical perception is discussed in terms of studies on estimates of MOC strength from otoacoustic emissions and the effects of resection of the olivocochlear bundle in patients with vestibular neurectomy. Novel, innovative approaches are needed to resolve the dissatisfying conclusion that current results are unable to definitively confirm or refute the role of the MOC reflex in masking and intensity resolution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available