CM and OAE Changes Following Transient Efferent Excitation

  • D. T. Kemp
  • M. Souter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA)


Electrical stimulation of the efferent system produces changes in both electrical and mechanical cochlear responses. The AP is depressed, CM is enhanced and otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) are modified (Fex, 1962, Mountain, 1980, Siegal & Kim, 1982, Wiederhold, 1969, Wiederhold & Kiang, 1970, Robertson & Gummer, 1985). Most published data shows post stimulation changes that last for about 200ms following 100–200ms of 400 shocks/second COCB excitation (see Wiederhold & Kiang, 1970).


Otoacoustic Emission Distortion Product Post Shock Temporal Fine Structure Efferent Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Fex J. (1962) Auditory activity in centrifugal and centripetal cochlear fibres in cat. A study of a feedback system. Acto Physiol. Scand. 55, 1–68 (suppl.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kemp D.T. and Brown A M. (1986) Wide Band Anaylsis of otoacoustic intermodulation. In: Peripheral Auditory Mechanisms, Springer Verlag, pp 306-313.Google Scholar
  3. Kemp D.T. and Souter M. (1988a) A new rapid component in the cochlear response to brief electrical efferent stimulation — CM and otoacoustic observations. Hearing Research 34, 49–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kemp D. T. and Souter M. (1988b) The dynamics of cochlear perturbations following brief acoustic and efferent stimulation — otoacoustic and CM data. In: Basic Issues in Hearing. Eds: Duifuis, Horst & Wit, Academic Press, pp 116-123.Google Scholar
  5. Mountain D.C. (1980) Changes in endolymphatic potential and COCB stimulation alter cochlear mechanics. Science 210, 71–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Robertson, D. and Gummer M, (1985) Physiological and morphological characteristics at efferent neurones in the guinea pig cochlea. Hearing Res. 20, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Siegal J.H. and Kim D.O. (1982) Efferent neural control of cochlear mechanics? Olivocochlear bundle stimulation affects cochlear biomechanical nonlinearity. Hearing Res. 6, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Wiederhold, M.L. (1969) Variations in the effect of electrical stimulation of the COCB on cat single nerve fiber responses to tone bursts. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 48, 966–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Wiederhold, M.L. and Kiang, N.Y.S. (1970) Effects of electrical stimulation at the COCB on single auditory nerve fibres in the cat. J.Acoust. Soc. Am. 48, 950–965.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. T. Kemp
    • 1
  • M. Souter
    • 1
  1. 1.Functional Analysis Laboratory, Audiology DepartmentUCMSM Institute of Laryngology and OtologyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations