Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Research Articles, Systems/Circuits

The Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Pathway Potentiates Cochlear Amplification in Response to Hearing Loss

Patricia M. Quiñones, Michelle Pei, Hemant Srivastava, Ariadna Cobo-Cuan, Marcela A. Morán, Bong Jik Kim, Clayton B. Walker, Michael J. Serafino, Frank Macias-Escriva, Juemei Wang, James B. Dewey, Brian E. Applegate, Matthew J. McGinley and John S. Oghalai
Journal of Neuroscience 9 April 2025, 45 (15) e2103242025; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2103-24.2025
Patricia M. Quiñones
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michelle Pei
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hemant Srivastava
2Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030
3Duncan Neurological Research Institute, Texas Children’s Hospital, Texas 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ariadna Cobo-Cuan
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marcela A. Morán
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bong Jik Kim
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
4Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon 35015, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Bong Jik Kim
Clayton B. Walker
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
5Department of Biomedical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael J. Serafino
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frank Macias-Escriva
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Juemei Wang
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James B. Dewey
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for James B. Dewey
Brian E. Applegate
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
6Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew J. McGinley
2Department of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030
3Duncan Neurological Research Institute, Texas Children’s Hospital, Texas 77030
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John S. Oghalai
1Caruso Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033
6Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for John S. Oghalai
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • Peer Review
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The mammalian cochlea receives efferent feedback from the brain. Many functions for this feedback have been hypothesized, including on short timescales, such as mediating attentional states, and long timescales, such as buffering acoustic trauma. Testing these hypotheses has been impeded by an inability to make direct measurements of efferent effects in awake animals. Here, we assessed the role of the medial olivocochlear (MOC) efferent nerve fibers on cochlear amplification by measuring organ of Corti vibratory responses to sound in both sexes of awake and anesthetized mice. We studied long-term effects by genetically ablating the efferents and/or afferents. Cochlear amplification increased with deafferentation using VGLUT3−/− mice, but only when the efferents were intact, associated with increased activity within OHCs and supporting cells. Removing both the afferents and the efferents using VGLUT3−/− Alpha9−/− mice did not cause this effect. To test for short-term effects, we recorded sound-evoked vibrations while using pupillometry to measure neuromodulatory brain state. We found no state dependence of cochlear amplification or of the auditory brainstem response. However, state dependence was apparent in the downstream inferior colliculus. Thus, MOC efferents upregulate cochlear amplification chronically with hearing loss, but not acutely with brain state fluctuations. This pathway may partially compensate for hearing loss while mediating associated symptoms, such as tinnitus and hyperacusis.

  • brain state
  • cochlea
  • feedback
  • hearing
  • optical coherence tomography
  • outer hair cell
  • pupillometry

Significance Statement

The functional role of efferent innervation of the mammalian cochlea has remained in question. Here we show that the medial olivocochlear efferent system chronically potentiates cochlear sensitivity in response to removing the afferent signal but does not affect sensitivity in response to fluctuations in pupil-indexed brain state. While partially compensating for hearing loss, the efferent-mediated chronic potentiation may also contribute to associated symptoms of hearing loss, such as tinnitus and hyperacusis.

Introduction

The cochlea, like the retina and other sensory organs, is traditionally viewed as a feedforward system, stably providing sensory information to the brain. However, the cochlea receives neural feedback in the form of the olivocochlear efferent systems. Inputs from many sources, including widespread auditory and neuromodulatory structures, impinge on the efferent neurons in the olivary complex (Romero and Trussell, 2022). The efferents then carry these signals back into the cochlea via the olivocochlear bundle (Fig. 1). Lateral olivocochlear (LOC) efferent fibers synapse on the dendrites of the auditory nerve fibers under the inner hair cells and modulate hearing at the level of the auditory nerve (Lopez-Poveda, 2018). In contrast, the medial olivocochlear (MOC) efferent fibers synapse onto outer hair cells (OHCs) and release acetylcholine (ACh). Alpha9/10 ACh receptors detect this signal and activate calcium-dependent potassium channels, reducing OHC electromotility (Elgoyhen et al., 1994; Fuchs and Lauer, 2019). Supporting cells around the OHCs also have MOC efferent synapses (Zhao et al., 2022). Direct stimulation of MOC efferents has been shown to reduce basilar membrane vibration (Cooper and Guinan, 2006) and lower the voltage response of inner hair cells (Brown and Nuttall, 1984).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Inputs and outputs of the descending medial olivocochlear (MOC) efferent system. Medial olivocochlear (MOC) neurons located in the ventral nucleus of the trapezoid body (VNTB), one of the periolivary nuclei within the superior olivary complex (SOC; green), project to the cochlea, where they synapse on hair cells (bottom right). The MOC neurons receive descending input from the reticular activating system (RAS; dark blue), the inferior colliculus (purple), the auditory cortex, and other areas (top). These descending inputs could convey neuromodulatory brain state and acoustic context, respectively, to the cochlea. The descending RAS inputs also tightly regulate the size of the pupil. Therefore, pupil diameter in constant luminance conditions can be used as a readout of moment-to-moment changes in brain state. Central input onto the efferent MOC cells may affect cochlear function, since they project to the outer hair cells (OHCs) and modulate their ability to amplify the traveling wave, in a process known as cochlear amplification (top right). Sensitivity is the amount the organ of Corti vibrates in response to a sound stimulus. The characteristic frequency (CF) is the sound frequency at which vibration peaks when presenting low stimulus levels.

Functions of the MOC feedback pathway in hearing and sound-driven behavior are widely debated (Guinan, 2018; Lauer et al., 2022). On short time scales, ascending auditory input drives contralateral and ipsilateral MOC reflex arcs, slightly reducing otoacoustic emissions and compound auditory nerve responses shortly after the onset of an acoustic stimulus (Puria et al., 1996). These ascending inputs, combined with descending auditory and neuromodulatory inputs to the MOC efferents, are thought to enhance auditory signals, particularly in noisy backgrounds, by suppressing the response to unattended or ignored auditory or visual stimuli (Guinan, 2006; Delano et al., 2007; Abdala et al., 2009; Mishra and Lutman, 2014; Bidelman and Bhagat, 2015; Smith and Keil, 2015; Maruthy et al., 2017). Results on these top-down effects have been variable and often conflicting (Beim et al., 2019). This may, in part, be due to methodological challenges in directly measuring MOC effects and separating them from LOC or middle ear reflex effects in awake animals, including humans (Liberman and Guinan, 1998). One overarching hypothesis is that the top-down influences on the MOCs impart broad state dependence on the cochlea, analogous to the role of brain state in controlling pupil size for vision (McGinley, 2020).

Long time scale effects suggest that MOC efferents help “toughen” OHCs by sound conditioning so that they are less subject to loud noise trauma after chronic exposure to lower levels of noise (Kujawa and Liberman, 1997, 1999). Furthermore, acoustic injury to the cochlea is mitigated by MOC efferents via alpha9 receptors on OHCs (Maison et al., 2002; Slika and Fuchs, 2024). Another long-term role for MOC efferents may be adjusting cochlear gain and dynamic range after hearing loss. Besides having difficulty hearing quiet sounds, patients with hearing loss have poor speech understanding in noisy environments and tinnitus. They also experience hyperacusis, where certain sounds feel painfully loud to them but are not bothersome to others (Langguth et al., 2013, 2024). The common explanation for tinnitus and hyperacusis is that because the afferent auditory signal from the cochlea provides less information than the brain expects, central gain within the central nervous system, primarily the cortex, is increased as a compensation mechanism (Chambers et al., 2016; Salvi et al., 2017, 2021; McGill et al., 2022).

Thus, two functional categories for the MOC efferents have been proposed: dynamic changes in cochlear function to moment-to-moment changes in attention and brain states and chronic cochlear adaptations to maintain dynamic range while protecting against loud environmental conditions. Here we adapted optical coherence tomography (OCT) to measure organ of Corti vibration in awake mice and assess these possibilities. We hypothesized that deafferentation would increase amplification due to MOC efferent effects. Our data demonstrate that the MOCs produce chronic, but not short-term state-related, modulation of cochlear amplification.

Materials and Methods

Animal preparation

For OCT experiments, we used wild-type (WT) CBA/CaJ mice (JAX stock # 000654), Alpha9−/− (JAX stock #005696), and VGLUT3−/− mice (JAX stock # 016931) that were bred on a mixed background of C57BL/6J and 129S1. The number of males and females for each experiment were within 25% of each other. Animals were housed under a 12 h light/dark cycle with ad libitum access to food and water. When mice required anesthesia, intraperitoneal injections of ketamine/xylazine (100 and 10 mg/kg, respectively) were used, and body temperature was maintained at 37 ± 0.5°C with a heating pad. Supplemental doses of anesthesia were provided as needed to maintain areflexia throughout the procedure. All surgical and animal handling procedures were carried out in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and were approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Depending upon where the experiments were performed, approval was either at the University of Southern California (OCT experiments and immunolabeling) or at Baylor College of Medicine [auditory brainstem response (ABR) and inferior colliculus (IC) recordings].

OCT vibrometry of anesthetized mice

We used our previously published experimental preparation for these studies (Applegate et al., 2011; Jawadi et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2015; Dewey et al., 2018, 2019, 2021; Badash et al., 2021a; Nankali et al., 2022; Quiñones et al., 2022). The custom-built system consisted of a swept laser (Insight Photonic Solutions, SLE-101) with center wavelength of 1,310 nm, bandwidth of 90 nm, and sweep rate of 100 kHz. The optical signal was transduced by a dual-balanced photodetector (Insight Photonic Solutions, BPD-1) and then digitized at 400 ms/s (AlazarTech, ATS9373). The axial resolution was 11.8 μm and the lateral resolution was 9.8 μm.

All mice for these experiments ranged in age from postnatal days (P) 37 to 54. We studied 35 mice (9 WT, 9 Alpha9−/−, 8 VGLUT3−/−, 9 Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/−). After the induction of anesthesia, the skull was fixed with dental cement to a custom head-holder, and a ventrolateral surgical approach was used to access the left bulla. The bulla bone was then carefully chipped away to allow visualization of the otic capsule and ossicular chain. A small earphone (ER2SE; Etymotic Research) was positioned in front of the opening of the ear canal so it was ∼3 mm from the eardrum. Our 1D microscopic VOCTV system was then used to image and measure vibrations from within the cochlea peering through the otic capsule bone noninvasively. We studied the apical turn, approximately a half-turn down from the helicotrema. Vibratory measurement points were chosen to be local intensity maxima near the basilar membrane. Calibrated pure tone stimuli were used. After the measurements were completed, mice were killed by anesthetic overdose, and the cochleae were harvested for immunohistochemistry.

Dynamic optical coherence microscopy of subcellular activity

We also used a custom-built OCT experimental rig to image the organ of Corti at high resolution, noninvasively. We studied 10 mice (5 WT, 5 VGLUT3−/−). An upright microscope (Eclipse LV100, Nikon) was adapted to relay frequency-domain OCT signals to and from the tissue. A 165 nm broadband light source centered at 845 nm (T-850-HP, Superlum) and a spectrometer (Cobra-S 800, Wasatch Photonics) powered the OCT unit. We used a 10×, 0.3 NA objective (Plan Fluor MRH07120, Nikon) to image through the round window membrane (RWM) of anesthetized mice and collect image stacks of the organ of Corti. Because the objective has a high numerical aperture, the depth over which the OCT system can image is optically limited; thus this technique is named optical coherence microscopy (OCM). The axial resolution was 1.9 μm and the lateral resolution was 1.7 μm.

After finding the organ of Corti under the microscope, we collected a 3D volume stack for imaging purposes. Then, for the dynamic OCM measurements, we collected 150 B-scan (x–z) images at 130 Hz and performed FFT analysis on each voxel within the magnitude images. The frequency response of changes in pixel intensity was broken down into three bands (low, 0–5 Hz; middle, 5–15 Hz; and high, 15–64 Hz) and the mean of the power spectrum within each band calculated. This quantifies the frequency response and the magnitude of changes in reflectivity within cells, thus giving a measure of their subcellular activity.

Awake OCT mouse procedures

Mice used for awake OCT experiments went through several sequential steps. They ranged from 5 to 14 weeks of age. First, they had a head post glued to their skull. Buprenorphine (0.5 mg/kg) was administered subcutaneously ∼5 min before this procedure for pain control. A portion of the scalp was resected, the periosteum was elevated off the skull, and a lightweight (∼0.3 g) head post was affixed to the skull with dental adhesive (RelyX Unicem, 3M ESPE). The left pinna was resected to permit a direct view of the tympanic membrane through the bony ear canal. Animals were then awakened, housed individually, and allowed to recover for 3–5 d.

After recovery from placement of the head post, the mice were habituated to head fixation while standing on top of a cylindrical treadmill. The treadmill spun freely, and mice were permitted to spontaneously walk or stay still on top it. The treadmill was fixed to an air table within a double-walled sound booth. We progressively increased their time on the treadmill to 60 min over 3–5 d using walnuts as a treat to create a positive experience. Once the mouse was comfortable on the treadmill, experiments were run for several days over the following 1–2 weeks. Thus, each mouse had between two and five experimental recordings to pick from. During experiments, we recorded vibrations from the organ of Corti to assess cochlear physiology, pupil diameter as a measure of brain state, and body movements for artifact rejection. We selected the recording that by eye demonstrated many changes in pupil diameter (indicating change in brain state) with many high-quality vibratory tuning curves as assessed by a low noise floor and with minimal rejection artifacts. Thus, only one recording from each mouse was included in the averaged data.

Vibrometry of the organ of Corti in awake mice

Sound-evoked vibrations were recorded from the apical turn of the cochlea using a miniature version of our 1D OCT device (Lui et al., 2021). This device was small enough to be mounted on a flexible arm mounted to the air table that could be locked into place once a good imaging position was identified. The axial resolution was 11.8 μm and the lateral resolution was 26 μm.

The OCT device was positioned ∼10 mm from the entrance of the ear canal and once we got to a good imaging position, locked in place. We selected the imaging position by seeing the tympanic membrane on the built-in camera (x–y image) and the cochlea and organ of Corti on the OCT B-scan (x–z cross-sectional image). Then, vibrations were measured from single voxels representing points within the OoC at a location approximately one half-turn from the apex. Vibratory measurement points were chosen to be local intensity maxima near the basilar membrane.

Acoustic stimuli were presented free field through a horn tweeter (Fostex FT17H) positioned 6 cm from the left ear. Before recording, stimuli were calibrated using a 0.25 inch condenser microphone (B&K, 4939). Auditory stimuli were either single tones of varying frequency or multitone Zwuis complexes (van der Heijden and Joris, 2003). The single-tone stimuli ranged from 5 to 13 kHz in 1 kHz steps and were presented at 50 dB SPL for 100 ms to 14 mice (6 WT and 8 Alpha9−/−). The multitone stimuli had 18 spectral components, spanning from 4.5 to 13.8 kHz with an average spacing of 541 Hz. All components had equal amplitudes and were presented from 10 to 80 dB SPL in 10 dB steps for 100 ms to 12 different mice (6 WT and 6 Alpha9−/−).

After collecting data in the awake state, we anesthetized the mice and kept them in the same position. Thus, we could acquire OoC vibratory responses from the same cochlear location in both awake and anesthetized conditions in the same animals down the ear canal. The only adjustment was that a heating pad was positioned under the mouse's body during these anesthetized recordings. We used the multitone stimuli to study 12 mice (6 WT and 6 Alpha9−/−). These were the same 12 mice used for the awake measurements with multitone stimuli described above.

Artifact rejection during vibrometry in awake mice

When we initiated these experiments, we first tested the rigidity of the head fixation system. We imaged first the head post and then the cochlea in mice that were awake and moving on the treadmill. Even while running, the post and the area of the skull glued to the post did not move. In contrast, the cochlea was found to move up to 50 µm, presumably because of flex in the suture lines within the different portions of the skull. When the mouse stopped moving, the cochlea always returned to its previous position. These movements created artifacts in our vibrometry recordings. Thus, we used a camera to assess for movements of the mouse and did not analyze data that was collected when the mouse was moving. With this approach, we could remove artifact-ridden data from our analysis in an objective manner.

Pupillometry for OCT experiments

During the awake mouse experiments, brain state was tracked using pupillometry, which has previously been demonstrated to track neuromodulatory brain state in the auditory neocortex and thalamus and hippocampus (McCormick et al., 2015; McGinley et al., 2015a,b; Reimer et al., 2016). The right eye was illuminated with infrared light (850 nm, LED Engin, LZ1-00R602), and images were acquired at 10 Hz using a camera (Allied Vision, Alvium 1800 U-501m) fitted with a zoom lens (Newport, M-5X) and bandpass optical filter (MidOpt, BN810). Additionally, an ambient UV light (365 nm, Seoul Viosys, TCN6MA1A) was used to provide low-intensity illumination. First, we turned up this light such that the pupil of the animal was approximately mid-range in diameter. We further adjusted it until we were confident that it increased with walking and decreased when still to verify that the measurement provided adequate sensitivity to detect brain state.

Using custom software, pupil diameters were determined in real time. The images of the pupil were thresholded by signal intensity and fitted with an ellipse. The diameter of a circle with an area equivalent to the ellipse was calculated for each image frame and taken to be the pupil diameter. Pupil diameters were normalized by dividing by their maximal value in each session. Timestamps of individual video frames were used to associate the pupil measurements with the vibrometry and neural recordings.

Assessment of body movements for OCT experiments

Body movements were monitored with another camera (Jiusion 40×) situated in front of the mouse at ∼15 cm. The sum of absolute differences method (Richardson, 2003) was used to detect animal movements in the video recordings. As nothing in the frame except the mouse could move, the total motion energy of the pixels of the video was calculated as an index of perceptible movements of the mouse. This was computed as follows: ∑pixel|it−it−1| where it is the intensity of the pixel on frame t. If the absolute value of the intensity difference was greater than the threshold we set, the pupillometry data and vibrometry data were excluded from the analysis. The threshold was determined by eye, after observing videos recorded from several different mice on the wheel.

Brainstem recordings in awake mice

A total of 19 WT C57BL/6J mice were used (Jackson Laboratory). Animals at 7–8 weeks postnatal were anesthetized with isoflurane (1.5–2% in oxygen) and were first implanted with a head post for securing them on the head-fixed experimental setup.

For IC experiments, immediately after implanting the head post, a 3 mm craniotomy was made over IC, centered at the coordinates: AP = −5.1 mm, ML = 1 mm. The craniotomy was covered with a glued stack of two coverslips (3 and 5 mm). A small hole (∼0.5 mm) was made through the coverslips beforehand to provide access to the Neuropixels probe. The coverslip stack was sealed around the edges of the craniotomy using Metabond. The hole in the coverslip was covered with silicon polymer (Kwik-Vast). After 3–4 d of postsurgery recovery, animals were habituated to the cylindrical treadmill for a single 1.5 h session. Recordings were conducted starting the day after habituation.

Pure tones of duration 40 ms (with 1 ms rising and falling cosine gate) and carrier frequency ranging from 3 Hz to 96 kHz in steps of 0.2 octaves, at two sound levels (50 and 60 dB SPL), were presented in random order to the animals. The interstimulus interval was a silent period lasting 140 ms. After each unique stimulus was presented 20 times, there was a 30 s silent period before the subsequent randomized collection of tones. Each unique stimulus was presented 500 times in each session. Neuropixels probes 1.0 were used to acquire LFP responses in IC, sampled at 2,500 Hz. At the headstage, LFP was filtered with a first-order passive low-pass switched-capacitor filter with a cutoff frequency of 500 Hz and a high-pass filter at 0.5 Hz. The gain was set to 250X. A total of 22 sessions were conducted across 13 mice.

To confirm the electrode location in IC, Neuropixels probes were coated with DiI before insertion. The brain was harvested after transcardial perfusion with 4% paraformaldehyde. Sagittal sections with thickness of 100 μm were made using a vibratome and stained with DAPI before visualization.

For ABR experiments, four stainless steel screw electrodes with presoldered silver wire and gold pin (Plastics One) were implanted at the following locations:

  1. Active electrode: anterior-posterior (AP) = −6.25 mm, medial-lateral (ML) = 3 mm, ipsilateral to the speaker

  2. Reference: AP = −2.0 mm, ML = 0 mm

  3. Ground: AP = 4 mm, ML = 0 mm

  4. Additional ground: AP = −6.25 mm, ML = 3 mm, contralateral to the speaker

Mice were habituated as described above for IC experiments. Pure tones of duration 5 ms with 1 ms rise–fall time, carrier frequency of 8,16 or 32 kHz, and five sound levels (40–80 dB SPL, in steps of 10 dB) were presented in random order to the animals. The interstimulus interval was a silent period lasting 20 ms. After each unique stimulus was presented 500 times, there was a 30 s silent period. Overall, in a session, each unique stimulus was presented 15,000 times. ABRs were bandpass filtered between 1 and 10,000 Hz and amplified 100× by a bioamplifier (A-M Systems Model 1,800) before sampling by the NI A/D board at 30 KHz. Stimuli were presented in opposite polarity successively to minimize the contribution of microphonic potentials to the ABR waveforms. A total of 32 sessions were acquired from six mice.

Pupillometry in IC and ABR experiments was carried out as described above for OCT experiments but with slight differences in methodology. Images of right eye was acquired using Basler GigE camera and a fixed focal length lens (55 mm EFL, f/2.8, for 2/3″; Computar) placed at ∼8 inches from the animal. An infrared light source (850 nm, DigiKey) was used to illuminate the eye. A near-ultraviolet LED (405 nm) was placed above the animal head to provide ambient illumination. The intensity of the near-uv LED was adjusted for each session to capture the full range of pupil fluctuation, by increasing the light level until the pupil slightly constricted while the animal was walking on the treadmill. Frames were acquired at 15 Hz using custom LabVIEW code. Eye videos were labeled by DeepLabCut to mark pupil boundary using 8 points, and the pupil size was computed as the area of the ellipse fitted to these points.

Walk velocity was acquired by measuring the wheel motion using a rotary encoder (Accu, SL# 2204490). Data during which the animal was walking on the wheel were excluded.

All analyses were performed using MATLAB. LFPs were low-pass filtered at 300 Hz. Responses to only 60 dB were used in the subsequent LFP analysis. To remove responses from the putative dorsal cortex of IC, LFPs on electrodes lying within 300 μm from the IC surface were excluded. Electrode sites with significant responses around trough (N1; 2 ms window centered at N1) to at least one of the 26 frequencies presented (Wilcoxon rank sum test, alpha = 0.01, compared with 10 ms preceding baseline period) were included for further analysis. Peaks and troughs were identified using findpeaks in MATLAB. For each responding electrode site, the best frequency (BF) was calculated as the frequency with maximum (minimum for negative-going responses) response at N1. Responses to only the BF were used for state dependence analysis. Median pupil size in a 500 ms window preceding each BF stimulus (500 trials) was taken as the measure of neuromodulatory brain state for that trial (McGinley et al., 2015a,b). For each session, the distribution of pupil sizes for all stimuli was divided into 10 bins making sure that each bin contained at least 30 trials of each unique stimulus and that the remaining bins were approximately equal in pupil size.

ABRs were bandpass filtered between 300 and 3,000 Hz. ABRs in response to only 16 kHz were used in the analysis. The sound level of ABRs used in the analysis were chosen separately for each session (ranging from 60 to 80 dB SPL) by selecting the lowest sound level for which all five ABR waves had significant peaks. Given the higher number of stimulus trials in ABR, the distribution of pupil sizes preceding each stimulus was divided into deciles using prctile function in MATLAB. ABR peaks were identified using findpeaks in MATLAB.

Pupil-binned mean peak responses at each electrode site/session (LFP or ABR) were bootstrapped 1,000 times to fit a quadratic model to compute R2. Briefly, mean response in each bin pupil was computed at each electrode site for LFP and each session for ABR. This population data was bootstrapped, and a quadratic model was fit on the mean responses as a function of pupil size using polyfit function in MATLAB. The performance of the model was cross-validated using the leave-one-out method and R2 was computed as follows:sumofsquareserror(SSE)=∑(Ytest−Y^)2, sumofsquarestotal(SST)=∑(Y¯−Y^)2, R2=1−SSESST, where Y^ is the response predicted by the model and Y¯ is the mean response. Significance for R2 was calculated with the t test by comparing bootstrapped means against zero, i.e., if there was no effect of pupil size on the measurement.

Prestin immunolabeling to measure OHC prestin-containing membrane surface area

Our immunohistological methods were previously published (Badash et al., 2021b). We studied 26 mice (6 WT, 7 Alpha9−/−, 7 VGLUT3−/−, 6 Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/−). Briefly, excised cochlea were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde at room temperature for at least 30 min. The cochleae were then decalcified, and the sensory epithelium was dissected and immunolabeled for prestin (1:200, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), myosin VIIa (1:400, Proteus BioSciences), and neurofilament H (1:1,000, MilliporeSigma) and stained for actin using phalloidin 405 (1:200, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Secondary antibodies were Alexa Fluor 488 (1:500, Thermo Fisher Scientific), Alexa Fluor 555 (1:500, Thermo Fisher Scientific), and Alexa Fluor 647 (1:500, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Tissues were mounted onto slides using Fluoromount-G (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and confocal image stacks were acquired with a Leica SP8 microscope with a 63× oil-immersion objective (1.4 NA; Leica Microsystems).

3D reconstructions of image Z-stacks were segmented for prestin using the machine learning algorithm in Imaris (v 10.1.1, PerkinElmer). A mask was generated from which the prestin-containing membrane surface area for each OHC could be calculated. For the middle portion of each cochlea (CF 11.5–26 kHz), the average prestin intensity was quantified as the average prestin intensity of the ∼45–70 cells contained within the field of view.

Experimental design and statistical analyses

Data were collected using customized software written in Python, plotted using Matlab 2023a (MathWorks) and analyzed statistically using RStudio (Build 561, Posit software) running R (4.3.1, The R Foundation). Reported values are the mean ± standard error (SE) unless otherwise noted. For single comparisons, two-tailed unpaired or paired Student's t tests were used to assess statistical significance at the p = 0.05 level. For comparisons of multiple groups, ANOVA was performed. If p < 0.05, this was followed by post hoc t tests with Bonferroni’s correction for each pair combination.

For comparisons of vibratory responses, regression was performed using linear mixed effect models that included random effects using our published technique (Oghalai, 2023). We fit the vibratory data with a third-degree polynomial function and included stimulus frequency and stimulus level as cross-terms. We ran the fit from the LMER function into an ANOVA function, which provides one p value that describes the relationship between pupil size and the curves (i.e., magnitude or phase) crossed with frequency and level. When differences were found, t tests at different frequency/level combinations were performed as needed. Comparisons between other curves, such as gain, Q10dB, etc. were performed in a similar fashion.

Significance is indicated in the figures by asterisks (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.005, ***p < 0.0005). Also, we independently compared males and females within each cohort for every statistical test to assess for sex differences. There were no statistically significant sex differences in the effects. Thus, males and females were combined for the presented results.

Data supporting the findings of this study are available on our GitHub site (Oghalai, 2024).

Results

The MOC efferent pathway increases cochlear amplification with hearing loss

As a first assessment of how cochlear amplification was affected by the MOCs, we compared CBA/CaJ wild-type (WT) mice to VGLUT3−/− mice, a well-established model of profound hearing loss due to defective neurotransmission across the inner hair cell→auditory nerve synapse (Ruel et al., 2008; Seal et al., 2008; Akil et al., 2012). We hypothesized that if chronic noise exposure makes mice less susceptible to noise exposure via the MOC efferent pathway (Kujawa and Liberman, 1997, 1999), presumably by downregulating the OHC electromotile response, chronic hearing loss should have the opposite effect. Instead of measuring threshold shifts after noise exposure—which are affected by synapse and other changes, including through LOCs—we directly measured cochlear amplification by recording basilar membrane vibratory tuning curves from a position that is half a turn down from the apex in anesthetized mice (Lee et al., 2015).

Representative recordings demonstrate increased vibratory magnitudes to low-intensity stimuli in VGLUT3−/− mice (Fig. 2). This is most easily seen as higher sensitivity to sounds presented at 10 dB SPL (e.g., compare sensitivity curve peak against the red dotted lines in B and F). Importantly, both the vibratory magnitudes to high-intensity stimuli and the phase responses were similar between the two mouse strains. This is consistent with a difference in cochlear amplification but no difference in passive cochlear mechanics. Time domain recordings in response to a 30 dB SPL click stimulus revealed larger vibratory responses and more ringing behavior in VGLUT3−/− mice compared with wild-type mice (compare Fig. 2D vs Fig. 2H). Again, this pattern is consistent with an increase in cochlear amplification in VGLUT3−/− mice.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Deafferented VGLUT3−/− mice have more cochlear amplification than WT mice. Representative data from one WT mouse (top row) and one VGLUT3−/− mouse (bottom row). A, E, Raw vibratory responses to sounds of different frequencies (4–15 kHz) and intensities (10–90 dB SPL). The characteristic frequencies were ∼9–10 kHz. B, F, Sensitivity curves were created by referencing the vibratory magnitude to the stimulus intensity. For lower stimulus intensities (10–30 dB SPL), VGLUT3−/− mice demonstrated more cochlear amplification, as noted by the responses above the dotted red line. C, G, Phase responses were similar between the genotypes. The phase above 10 kHz is noisy because of the low vibratory magnitude and, thus, not significant. D, H, Responses to a 30 dB click revealed larger amplitude vibrations and more ringing (arrow) in VGLUT3−/− mice, consistent with more cochlear amplification.

To determine if the MOC efferents were the causative factor in the increased cochlear amplification in these hearing-impaired mice, we crossed VGLUT3−/− mice with Alpha9−/− mice. Alpha9−/− mice lack this acetylcholine receptor subunit on their OHCs so they do not respond to MOC efferents (Elgoyhen et al., 1994; Brown and Vetter, 2009). Littermates were then studied so we could compare four different genotypes: wild-type, Alpha9−/−, VGLUT3−/−, and Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/− mice. Only +/+ and −/− genotypes were used; we did not study any mice that were heterozygous for VGLUT3 or Alpha9. All four genotypes demonstrated similar vibratory responses to high-intensity stimuli, but the VGLUT3−/− mice demonstrated larger vibratory responses to low-intensity stimuli (Fig. 3). This was particularly noticeable in the sensitivity curves, where only VGLUT3−/− mice had peak sensitivities above 75 dB re:1 nm/Pa. Statistical analyses revealed no differences in vibratory magnitudes between WT, Alpha9−/−, and Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/− mice. However, VGLUT3−/− mice had larger vibratory responses compared with Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/− mice.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Increased cochlear amplification in VGLUT3−/− mice requires a functional MOC efferent pathway. Averaged vibratory responses for (A) WT mice (n = 9), (B) Alpha9−/− mice (n = 9), (C) VGLUT3−/− mice (n = 8), and (D) VGLUT3−/−Alpha9−/− mice (n = 9). Increased vibratory responses for lower sound levels are noted in the magnitude responses (first column) and sensitivity curves (second column) of VGLUT3−/− compared with VGLUT3−/−Alpha9−/− mice (compare curves above the red dotted line in the sensitivity plots; linear mixed effect model comparison p < 0.001, F = 9.11). However, their phase responses (third column) were similar (p = 0.064, F = 2.42). There were no differences in vibratory response magnitudes between the other three genotypes (p = 0.372, F = 1.08).

To aid the comparison of the four genotypes, we quantified several key characteristics. The gain was calculated for frequencies near the CF by subtracting the sensitivity at 80 dB from that at 20 dB SPL. This demonstrated that VGLUT3−/− mice had higher gain at 9.0 and 9.5 kHz (Fig. 4A). There were no differences in the frequency of maximal vibration (best frequency, or BF) or the sharpness of tuning (Q10dB) between the four genotypes (Fig. 4B,C).

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Quantification of the increased cochlear amplification in VGLUT3−/− mice. A, Comparison between WT (n = 9), Alpha9−/− (n = 9), VGLUT3−/− (n = 8), and Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/− (n = 9) mice. Gain between 20–80 dB SPL was higher in VGLUT3−/− mice at 9.0 and 9.5 kHz (linear mixed effect model comparisons p = 0.020, F = 2.278; follow-up t tests for 9.0 kHz: p = 0.038, t = 2.283 and 9.5 kHz: p = 0.033, t = 2.418), but similar among the other three genotypes (p > 0.05 for all other comparisons). B, There were no differences in the best frequency (BF) between the genotypes for any intensity level (linear mixed effect model comparisons p = 0.822, F = 0.570). C, There were no differences in the sharpness of frequency tuning (Q10dB) between the genotypes for any intensity level (linear mixed effect model comparisons p = 0.855, F = 0.526). D, The maximum gain was largest in VGLUT3−/− mice (ANOVA p = 0.011, F = 4.363; follow-up t test vs Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/− mice p = 0.026, t = 2.476). There were no differences in the maximum gain between the other three genotypes (ANOVA p = 0.497, F = 0.721). E, The sensitivity at the characteristic frequency (CF) was largest in in VGLUT3−/− mice (ANOVA p = 0.001, F = 6.668; follow-up t test vs Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/− mice p = 0.004, t = 3.423). There were no differences in the sensitivity at CF between the other three genotypes (ANOVA p = 0.736, F = 0.31). F, The sensitivity at 5 kHz, which was roughly half the CF, was similar among the genotypes (ANOVA p = 0.605, F = 0.623). For D&E, ANOVA was performed first, followed by post hoc t tests with Bonferroni’s correction for each pair combination. For F, only ANOVA was performed because it demonstrated no significance.

We then calculated the largest gain at each frequency by subtracting the sensitivity at 90 dB SPL from the lowest stimulus level that produced a measurable vibratory response at least 3 SD above the noise floor for each mouse. The highest was termed the maximal gain. Both the maximal gain and the sensitivity at the characteristic frequency (CF, the BF for the lowest stimulus intensity) were higher in VGLUT3−/− mice than in Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/− mice (Fig. 4D,E). There were no differences in the maximum gain or sensitivity at the CF between wild-type, Alpha9−/−, and Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/− mice. There was no difference in the sensitivity at 5 kHz, which is about half the CF, between any of the genotypes (Fig. 4F). Together, these data demonstrate that cochlear amplification is larger in VGLUT3−/− mice and that this effect is not found when the Alpha9 receptor is knocked out. Thus, the increase in cochlear amplification in VGLUT3−/− mice requires the MOC efferent pathway.

MOC efferents mediate increased OHC and supporting cell activity in VGLUT3−/− mice

Prestin levels have been demonstrated to increase in some states of hearing loss (Yu et al., 2008; Xia et al., 2013; Song et al., 2015), but the mechanism for this effect is unknown. We sought to determine if MOC efferent pathways are involved. Therefore, we performed immunofluorescence labeling and quantified prestin levels in the four homozygous littermate cohorts that resulted from the VGLUT3/Alpha9 double-crossing. Across all genotypes, there were no differences in the amount of prestin per OHC (Fig. 5). This argues that the effect of the MOC efferents on cochlear amplification is not mediated by changes in prestin levels within OHCs.

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Increased cochlear amplification in VGLUT3−/− mice are not due to increased OHC prestin levels. Top, Representative immunofluorescence images from the mid-portion of cochlea from the four genotypes. We labeled nerve fibers (α-NF, gradient glow), actin (phalloidin, cyan), hair cells (α-Myo7a, green), and prestin (α-prestin, red). Images of prestin labeling alone are shown to the right. Scale bars, 10 µm. Bottom, We quantified whole cell prestin immunofluorescence from each individual OHC and then averaged these data for each mouse. We studied WT (n = 6), Alpha9−/− (n = 7), VGLUT3−/− (n = 7), and Alpha9−/−VGLUT3−/− (n = 6) mice. There were no significant differences in OHC prestin levels between the four genotypes (ANOVA, p = 0.404, F = 1.018).

MOC efferents may alter cellular physiology in many other ways that could modulate the production of cochlear amplification. Within the OHC, some examples of potential mechanisms include cell stiffness, turgor pressure, membrane fluidity, chloride levels, calcium levels, and resting potential (Santos-Sacchi, 1991; Chertoff and Brownell, 1994; Kakehata and Santos-Sacchi, 1995; Sziklai and Dallos, 1997; Santos-Sacchi et al., 1998, 2001, 2006; He and Dallos, 1999; Oghalai et al., 2000; Sugawara et al., 2000; Lue et al., 2001; Szonyi et al., 2001; He et al., 2003; Oghalai, 2004; Santos-Sacchi and Wu, 2004; Rajagopalan et al., 2007; Zheng et al., 2007). Outside of the OHC, there are MOC efferent terminals that innervate supporting cells and alter gap junction physiology with long-term effects on cochlear amplification (Zhao et al., 2022). Furthermore, MOC effects on OHCs may impact nearby supporting cells, because the two types of cells are both embedded within the organ of Corti and have structural connections. To assess for chronic changes in OHC and supporting cell physiology and/or biomechanical properties related to MOC efferents, we measured changes in reflectivity with subcellular resolution using dynamic OCM (Münter et al., 2020). OCM is essentially OCT but with a high-power objective that permits subcellular resolution.

First, we imaged the organ of Corti in live mice through the RWM using our custom-built OCM system. We then killed the animal and waited 10 min. This was done to remove any dynamic effects by the MOC efferent fibers and only assess for chronic changes. We rapidly collected cross-sectional images and then analyzed the variance in reflectivity at each voxel by bandpass filtering them into low-, middle-, and high-frequency bands (Fig. 6). Simply speaking, this provides an assessment of how fast particles are moving within the cells, not a vibrational measurement. VGLUT3−/− mice demonstrated similar low-frequency activity to control mice, but more mid- and high-frequency activity. While individual cells could not be clearly distinguished, the extent of the spread was large enough to tell that the differences were found both in the OHCs and in the nearby supporting cells, including Deiters’ cells and Hensen cells. To quantify this, the activity within the OHC region and within the Deiters’ cell region was normalized to the activity within the RWM for the frequency band for five mice in each cohort. This demonstrated that the OHC activity was higher within the mid- and high-frequency bands, but similar in the low-frequency band. In the Deiters’ cell region, only the mid-frequency band demonstrated more activity in VGLUT3−/− mice. These data argue that the reason the VGLUT3−/− mice have more cochlear amplification is because the OHCs and supporting cells around the OHCs have long-lasting alterations in physiological and/or biophysical properties.

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6.

Dynamic OCM reveals increased middle- and high-frequency activity within the OHCs and nearby supporting cells of VGLUT3−/− mice. Cross-sectional (x–z) images through the round window membrane (RWM) were taken 10 min after killing. The variation in pixel intensity was analyzed to assess the movements of subcellular particles in the tissues. Pixel intensity over time was bandpass filtered into three bins: low (0–5 Hz), mid (5–15 Hz), and high (15–64 Hz). Data from representative WT and VGLUT3−/− mice are shown. The outer hair cell (OHC) and inner hair cell (IHC) regions are noted. VGLUT3−/− mice (n = 5) had relatively more activity in the OHC region and the Deiters’ cell (DC) region in the middle- and high-frequency bands compared with WT mice (n = 5; cyan arrow and orange arrow, respectively). Nonpaired t tests OHClow: p = 0.266, t = 1.19; DClow: p = 0.543, t = 0.635; OHCmid: p = 0.006, t = 3.67; DCmid: p = 0.041, t = 2.43; OHChigh: p = 0.015, t = 3.07; DChigh p = 0.091, t = 1.92.

MOC efferents do not modulate cochlear physiology with changes in brain state

It is well recognized that MOC efferents are activated by sound stimuli via a brainstem reflex arc that feeds back onto OHCs and decreases cochlear gain (Kujawa et al., 1992; Cooper and Guinan, 2003, 2006; Guinan and Cooper, 2008). This is a rapid response and primarily due to ACh-mediated activation of K+ channels that transiently lowers the OHC resting potential (Bobbin and Konishi, 1971; Kakehata et al., 1993; Sziklai and Dallos, 1993; Sziklai et al., 1996; Dallos et al., 1997; Kalinec et al., 2000). The magnitude of the drop in cochlear amplification due to this reflex arc is relatively small, possibly because the anesthesia used during the animal experiments inhibits a potentiating effect of descending inputs to the MOC efferents (Puria et al., 1996; Liberman and Guinan, 1998; Boyev et al., 2002).

To test whether brain state modulates cochlear amplification, we recorded sound-evoked vibrations from the organ of Corti within the apical turn of the cochlea in awake wild-type (WT) and Alpha9−/− mice through the ear canal (Fig. 7). Pupillometry, a proxy for brain state, was tracked simultaneously. During the course of these 2–3 h experiments, we correlated spontaneous changes in pupil diameter with cochlear vibratory responses. By using a session duration of ∼2–3 h, we ensured sufficient time to capture the full range of pupil-indexed brain states in mice. This is supported by the fact that the pupil was sometimes very small and also became very large when the animal walked (largest when running), thus spanning a wide range of states, similar to prior studies (McGinley et al., 2015a, b). The average pupil size was measured in a 500 ms window preceding the sound onset, corresponding to the spontaneous period. This approach was intentional to avoid contamination by sound-evoked pupillary transients (Beatty, 1982; de Gee et al., 2020), allowing us to accurately capture the ongoing brain state at each moment. In separate experiments, we recorded ABRs or local field potentials (LFPs) in the IC to relate possible state-dependent changes in the cochlea to changes in the brainstem at progressive processing stages encompassing the location of efferent neurons.

Figure 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 7.

Experimental setup for recording organ of Corti (OoC) vibrometry and pupillometry in awake mice. A, Head posting and resection of the left pinna was performed. After 1 week, the mouse was habituated to being comfortable on the free-spin wheel and to hearing the sound stimuli. This took ∼3 d, and then we began performing basilar membrane vibrometry through the ear canal. B, The infrared light-emitting diode (IR-LED) and IR camera were used to image the pupil; the ultraviolet LED (UV-LED) was titrated at the beginning of the experiment so that the pupil diameter was in the middle of its range. The visible light (RGB) camera was used to monitor for movements of the mouse that might produce artifacts. C, Image down the ear canal of the mouse. The tympanic membrane and ossicular mass are visible. D, OCT cross-sectional image through the tympanic membrane (Tym) and otic capsule bone reveals the organ of Corti (OoC) within the apical turn of the mouse cochlea. E, Diagram of the cross section of the cochlea. SV, scala vestibuli; SM, scala media; ST, scala tympani; TM, the tectorial membrane; RM, Reissner's membrane. F, Representative data from one mouse. Pupil diameter is shown versus time (red tracing). OoC vibrometry response curves were collected at each black dot. Three sets of vibrometry response curves are shown, each with a different size pupil (small, medium, and large).

Pupil-indexed brain state does not affect organ of Corti vibration

To assess for effects of brain state on cochlear amplification, we measured pupil diameter continuously throughout the experiments in six WT mice (Fig. 8A). Pupil diameter varied spontaneously from small to large during these experiments, indicating spontaneous changes in brain state. We also measured vibratory magnitudes to 50 dB SPL pure tones ranging from 5 to 13 kHz (Fig. 8B). For these initial experiments, phase was not analyzed. We plotted the peak vibratory magnitude versus pupil diameter in a representative example from one mouse (Fig. 8C). There was no correlation. We split these data up into three different pupil sizes (small, medium, and large) for all mice and then plotted the averaged magnitude response (Fig. 8D). There was no significant difference between these three curves.

Figure 8.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 8.

Brain state, as measured by pupil diameter, does not affect organ of Corti vibration. A, Spontaneous variations in pupil diameter measured in one representative mouse. Over this 100 s cropped portion of the recording, the pupil dilated and then constricted. B, The peak magnitude of the vibratory response measured in the same mouse during the same time calculated from repeated measurements to 50 dB SPL stimuli ranging in frequency from 5 to 13 kHz. There were no obvious changes in vibratory magnitude that correlated with the pupil diameter. C, Scatterplot of data recorded from a full experiment from the same mouse demonstrates no obvious correlation between pupil diameter and the peak magnitude of the vibratory response (linear fit R2 = 0.0045; p = 0.496). D, E, The data for each mouse were binned into small, medium, and large pupil sizes and the vibratory responses averaged. Then, mice within each cohort were averaged (WT: n = 6, Alpha9−/−: n = 8). There were no correlations between vibratory responses and pupil diameter in either genotype (linear mixed effect model comparisons WT: p = 1.00, F = 0.022; Alpha9−/− p = 0.976, F = 0.203).

We performed the same experiment in eight Alpha9−/− mice, in which the OHCs do not receive synaptic input from the MOC efferent fibers (Vetter et al., 1999, 2007; Elgoyhen, 2023). These functioned as controls for these experiments, as their MOC efferent pathway is nonfunctional. Like WT mice, there was no obvious relationship between pupil diameter and vibratory magnitudes in Alpha9−/− mice (Fig. 8E).

Follow-up experiments confirmed that pupil-indexed state does not affect organ of Corti vibration

These initial results surprised us because we considered it likely that since brain state modulates the peripheral visual system by changing pupil diameter (McGinley, 2020), and the efferent neurons receive extensive innervation by neuromodulatory systems (Romero and Trussell, 2022), a similar effect would be found within the peripheral auditory system. Thus, a different experimenter performed a second, more comprehensive series of experiments. This time, we varied the stimulus intensity from 10 to 80 dB SPL. We also increased the frequency resolution of the sound stimuli. To maintain the ability to measure each set of vibratory tuning curves quickly and reduce the impact of animal movements, we used a multitone simultaneous stimulus approach. One downside of this approach is that the presentation of multiple-frequency stimuli mildly decreases cochlear amplification compared with the sequential presentation of pure-tone stimuli (Versteegh and Van Der Heijden, 2012; Fallah et al., 2019).

Each mouse had repeated vibratory measurements performed during the experiment. Pupil diameter was measured simultaneously, and we divided the vibratory data into three categories as described previously (small, medium, and large pupil diameters). We then averaged these three categories of vibratory responses for each mouse. A representative set of vibratory magnitude data measured in one WT mouse is shown (Fig. 9A, left panel). There were no obvious differences between the magnitude responses with different pupil diameters in this example.

Figure 9.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 9.

Vibratory responses did not vary with brain state. While measuring each set of vibratory responses, the pupil diameter was also measured and categorized as being small, medium, or large. All vibratory responses within each category were then averaged together to create three sets of responses for each mouse. A, B, Representative data from one WT and one Alpha9−/− mouse (left). The three curves from each mouse in each cohort (WT: n = 6, Alpha9−/−: n = 6) were then averaged to get magnitude (center) and phase (right) responses. There were no differences in vibratory magnitude with pupil size (linear mixed effect model comparisons WT: p = 0.505, F = 0.885; Alpha9−/− p = 0.842, F = 0.455). Similarly, phase did not correlate with pupil size (linear mixed effect model comparisons WT: p = 0.107, F = 1.743; Alpha9−/− p = 0.649, F = 0.549). C, D, The gain (left), best frequency (BF, center), and sharpness of frequency tuning (Q10dB, right) were analyzed. There were no correlations between these measures of cochlear amplification and pupil diameter. Linear mixed effect model comparisons were performed for gain (WT: p = 0.882, F = 0.394; Alpha9−/− p = 0.928, F = 0.316), BF (WT: p = 0.918, F = 0.333; Alpha9−/− p = 0.992, F = 0.135), and Q10dB (WT: p = 0.819, F = 0.484; Alpha9−/− p = 0.979, F = 0.189).

The vibratory magnitude and phase data for the 6 WT mice we studied were then averaged (Fig. 9A, center and right panels). Regression analyses revealed no differences associated with pupil diameter. We performed the same experiments with 6 Alpha9−/− mice and found similar results (Fig. 9B). No differences were associated with pupil diameter.

To assess for changes in cochlear amplification more specifically, we calculated the gain between 20 and 80 dB SPL stimuli at frequencies where the vibratory response was largest (Fig. 9C, left panel). There were no differences in gain linked to pupil diameter. We also looked for shifts in the tonotopic map by determining the BF for each stimulus level (Fig. 9C, center panel). However, statistical analyses revealed no differences linked to pupil diameter. Finally, we assessed for changes in the sharpness of tuning by calculating the Q10dB for each stimulus intensity (Fig. 9C, right panel). Again, there were no differences associated with pupil size. In Alpha9−/− mice, these analyses revealed similar results (Fig. 9D).

We then directly compared WT and Alpha9−/− mice by binning pupil diameter from 0 to 100% (minimum to maximum diameter for each mouse) and comparing several parameters. We assessed only for differences linked to genotype or the combination of genotype and pupil diameter, with the assumption that correlations related to pupil diameter, but not genotype, do not involve the MOC efferent pathway. The gain from 20 to 80 dB SPL at the characteristic frequency (CF, the BF at the lowest stimulus intensity) was not statistically higher in Alpha9−/− mice than that in wild-type mice, and there was no correlation of pupil diameter with gain (Fig. 10A). Interestingly, even though there seemed to be a slight difference in tuning between WT and Alpha9−/− mice, the characteristic frequency (CF, or the BF to 20 dB SPL stimuli) was not statistically different between these cohorts and, more importantly, there were no differences linked to pupil diameter (Fig. 10B). Tuning curve sharpness at 20 dB SPL (Q10dB) was not different between the genotypes nor did it vary with pupil diameter (Fig. 10C).

Figure 10.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 10.

There were no correlations between cochlear amplification and pupil diameter in either WT (n = 6) or Alpha9−/− (n = 6) mice. Data were binned by pupil diameter into 10 bins (i.e., by decile), and linear mixed effect model comparisons were performed to assess for effects of genotype and pupil diameter on each measurement. A, Gain (genotype: p = 0.420, F = 0.705; pupil: p = 0.570, F = 0.684), (B) CF (genotype: p = 0.101, F = 3.28; pupil: p = 0.595, F = 0.642), (C) Q10dB (genotype: p = 0.252, F = 0.1.49; pupil: p = 0.353, F = 1.32), (D) the vibratory magnitude at the BF (genotype: p = 0.856, F = 0.035; pupil: p = 0.124, F = 2.10), (E) the vibratory magnitude at half the BF (genotype: p = 0.556, F = 0.369; pupil: p = 0.762, F = 0.389), and (F) the phase at the CF (genotype: p = 0.592, F = 4.51; pupil: p = 0.172, F = 1.79) all demonstrated no correlations.

Next, we analyzed several raw values from the vibratory data curves that we thought might be even more sensitive to genotype and/or pupil diameter differences. The vibratory magnitude at the peak of the tuning curve with low-intensity stimuli would be most likely to change with the modulation of cochlear amplification. However, the vibratory magnitude at the BF to 20 dB SPL stimuli did not vary with genotype or pupil diameter (Fig. 10D). Another possibility was that cochlear amplification below the BF might be modulated by the MOC efferents. However, the vibratory magnitude at half the BF in response to 50 dB SPL stimuli also did not vary with genotype or pupil diameter (Fig. 10E). Finally, if the speed of the traveling wave was being modulated, the phase at the BF to low-intensity stimuli would change. However, it did not vary significantly with genotype or pupil diameter (Fig. 10F). Altogether, these data from two sequential series of experiments in awake mice demonstrate that dynamic changes in brain state, as measured by pupillometry, do not modulate cochlear amplification.

General anesthesia does not affect cochlear amplification

In order to test whether larger variations in brain state affect cochlear amplification, we next determined the effect of general anesthesia, where cortical input to the MOC efferent pathway is removed, on cochlear amplification. We first measured organ of Corti vibratory responses in awake mice and then remeasured them after the induction of general anesthesia. We hypothesized that the activity of the MOC efferents reflecting brain state would be blocked by anesthesia and thus detected with our vibratory measurements. However, we found that WT mice demonstrated no change in vibratory magnitude or phase between the awake and anesthetized state (Fig. 11A). Similarly, Alpha9−/− mice also had no changes in these measurements between the awake and anesthetized state (Fig. 11B). Further analysis to quantify the gain, BF, and Q10dB also revealed no differences between awake and anesthetized wild-type mice (Fig. 11C). In Alpha9−/− mice, there were no differences in the BF between the awake and anesthetized states (Fig. 11C, center panel). However, there were statistically significant differences in the gain and Q10dB between these states in Alpha9−/− mice (Fig. 11C, left and right panels). To better understand these differences, we then performed paired t tests with Bonferroni’s correction at each frequency. Significant differences were found for three frequencies in the gain curves (8.3, 9.9, and 12.7 kHz) and for two levels in the Q10dB curve (20 and 30 dB SPL). Our interpretation of these areas of significance is that, even with the Bonferroni’s correction, they most likely represent random variation due to the large number of statistical comparisons we have done to analyze these data. Furthermore, the fact that they were only found in Alpha9−/− mice indicates that, even if these findings have a true physiologic basis, the underlying cause is not related to the MOC efferent pathway. Thus, none of our experiments supported the hypothesis that brain state dynamically modulates cochlear function.

Figure 11.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 11.

Anesthetized brain state does not alter BM vibration. A, B, Vibratory responses from awake (solid lines) and anesthetized (dotted lines) WT (n = 6) and Alpha9−/− (n = 6) mice were similar for one representative mouse (left), averaged magnitude responses (center), and averaged phase responses (right). There were no differences in vibratory magnitude between the awake and anesthetized conditions in WT or Alpha9−/− mice (linear mixed effect model comparisons WT: p = 0.363, F = 1.06; Alpha9−/− p = 0.207, F = 1.52). Similarly, the phase did not change (linear mixed effect model comparisons WT: p = 0.649, F = 0.549; Alpha9−/− p = 0.615, F = 0.600). C, D, The gain (left), BF (center), and Q10dB (right) were calculated. Linear mixed effect model comparisons were performed to assess for effects of anesthesia on each measurement. Gain (WT: p = 0.669, F = 0.521; Alpha9−/−: p < 0.001, F = 7.85), BF (WT: p = 0.469, F = 0.855; Alpha9−/−: p = 0.102, F = 2.15), Q10dB (WT: p = 0.485, F = 0.825; Alpha9−/−: p = 0.039, F = 2.93). There were no significant differences found in WT mice. However, there were a few occasional points of statistical significance in Alpha9−/− mice that we followed up with t test analyses (e.g., Gain 8.3 kHz p = 0.036; Gain 9.9 kHz p = 0.022; Gain 12.7 kHz p = 0.014; Q10dB 20 dB SPL p = 0.015; Q10dB 30 dB SPL p = 0.035). However, these appear to have little physiological relevance, and our interpretation is that they represent statistical outliers.

State dependence of overall sound response strength emerges in the inferior colliculus

Brain states dynamically modulate auditory responses in the cortex and thalamus (McCormick et al., 2015; McGinley et al., 2015a; Reimer et al., 2016). However, since we did not find any state-dependent changes within the cochlea, we wanted to determine whether these brain state effects are confined to the cortical and thalamic structures, or if subthalamic structures, including where the MOC neurons are located, are also influenced by brain state. Using head-posted awake mice on a cylindrical treadmill, we first measured pure tone-evoked LFPs from the central nucleus of the IC in the midbrain using Neuropixels probe 1.0 (Fig. 12A, left). In addition to LFPs, we also tracked pupil diameter and walking velocity (Fig. 12B). The LFPs exhibited two distinct peaks: an early positive peak (P1) followed by a large negative trough (N1; Fig. 12C). We found that the mean amplitude of N1 was significantly modulated by pupil-indexed brain state (Fig. 12E,F), showing higher responses at mid-arousal levels, whereas P1 was only weakly modulated (Fig. 12E,F; note the N1 amplitude sign is reversed). The error bars in Figure 12E represent the 68% BCA bootstrap confidence interval of the mean (N = 2,687 electrode sites from 22 sessions in 13 animals).

Figure 12.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 12.

Brain state correlates with responses in the inferior colliculus (IC), but not auditory brainstem responses (ABR). A, Left, Schematic of Neuropixels probe and image of the probe tip used for LFP data acquisition. Right, Sagittal view of the brain section showing probe track in IC. B, Snippet from an example session showing LFP aligned to pupil size. C, Population average tone-evoked LFP in the IC grouped by pre-stim pupil size showing state-dependent modulations in the negative peak of the LFP (N1). The error bars represent 68% BCA bootstrap confidence interval of the mean (N = 2,687 electrode sites from 22 sessions in 13 animals). D, Population average ABR grouped by pre-stim pupil size show lack of state dependence (n = 32 sessions in 6 animals). The error bars represent 68% BCA bootstrap confidence interval of the mean. E, Peak amplitude responses for LFP and ABR waves as a function of pupil size. N1 in the LFP responses from the IC shows strong state-dependent modulations. The ABR waves show no obvious state dependence. The error bars represent 68% BCA bootstrap confidence interval of the mean. The horizontal error bars (gray) for pupil size are across sessions whereas vertical error bars are across electrode sites. F, Using a quadratic model, we show that pupil-indexed brain state better predicts tone-evoked IC response but not for ABR waves. Explained variance (R2) is much larger for N1 than those observed for ABR waves. Data is bootstrapped 1,000 times with replacement to get R2 replicates. R2 is cross-validated using leave-one-out method. The error bars represent 68% BCA bootstrap confidence interval of the mean. ABR-I: p = 0.61, ABR-II: p = 0.53, ABR-III: p = 0.55, ABR-IV: p = 0.86, ABR-V: p = 0.87, log(V–I ratio): p = 0.99, LFP-P1: p = 0.04, LFP-N1: p < 0.0005.

Having demonstrated that state dependence is apparent at the level of IC responses, we wondered if it was also apparent in earlier brainstem structures. Thus, we measured ABRs to pure tones using scalp electrodes while tracking pupil diameter in awake head-fixed mice (Fig. 12D; N = 32 sessions in 6 animals). We analyzed the amplitudes of the first five ABR waves as a function of pupil size and found no state dependence in any of the peaks (Fig. 12E). The ABR wave V–I ratio, commonly used to quantify collicular central gain, also showed no state dependence (Fig. 13).

Figure 13.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 13.

Local averaging of adjacent trials improves R2 for IC responses but not for ABR waves. A, The R2 for IC responses increased as the number of trials averaged increased. No such increase was observed in ABR waves. The error bars represent 68% BCA bootstrap confidence interval of the mean. B, Ratio of ABR wave V–I does not show state dependence.

To quantify state dependence in both LFPs and ABRs, we fit a quadratic model to the peak responses as a function of pupil-indexed brain state and computed the explained variance (R2). This analysis showed that incorporating brain state improved prediction of the tone-evoked N1 response in the IC, but not the ABR waves or IC P1 (Fig. 12F). The small effect size of state dependence, as reflected in low R2 values, could be due to high single-trial variability resulting from the low SNR of ABR and LFP measurements. To address this possibility, we averaged trials that were adjacent in pupil size, before computing R2. The R2 for IC N1 responses increased with the number of trials averaged and a minimal increase was seen in P1, whereas no such increase was observed in ABR waves. The error bars represent the 68% BCA bootstrap confidence interval of the mean (Fig. 13). These results demonstrate that, even when locally denoising ABR and LFP estimates, pupil-indexed brain state does not impact ABR response magnitudes. Consistent with our vibrometry recordings, which did not show a change in brain state, the most reliable peak in the ABR, wave 1, reflecting the early auditory nerve response, did not show changes. Furthermore, waves 4–5, which encompass the superior olive (Melcher et al., 1996), where MOC cell bodies are located, did not show state dependence. Thus, these data demonstrate that pupil-indexed brain state modulate the overall response gain in the auditory pathway at higher levels than the cochlea and its MOC inputs and validates our experimental protocol for monitoring brain state.

Discussion

Our studies reveal that MOC efferent feedback causes cochlear gain to increase in chronic states of hearing loss. This occurs through chronic changes in biophysiological properties of the OHCs and supporting cells within the organ of Corti. Furthermore, we found that, unlike the peripheral visual system, which is modulated dynamically by the effects of spontaneous changes in brain state on pupil diameter, the cochlear amplifier is not. Together, these data suggest that the effect of brain state on processing within the mammalian cochlea is likely to be more chronic in nature and related to long-standing changes in acoustic exposure. Age, noise, and ototoxic exposure cause sensorineural hearing loss through the loss of cochlear hair cells and auditory neurons. Significant hearing loss affects 15% of American adults, and almost everyone becomes affected with age (NIH-NIDCD, 2023). Given that LOC efferents are thought to balance the afferent input between the two ears (Darrow et al., 2006), it is intriguing to consider that MOC efferents may provide a way for the brain to increase cochlear amplification and partially compensate for progressive sensorineural hearing loss.

The source of increased cochlear amplification in VGLUT3−/− mice might be due to increased cortical stimulation of the MOC efferents in response to the state of hearing loss. This might occur through the loss of afferent auditory input directly on the MOC brainstem neurons at the level of the reflex arc. Alternatively, it is important to consider that VGLUT3 is present in neuromodulatory brain structures (Schäfer et al., 2002; Amilhon et al., 2010; Balázsfi et al., 2018). VGLUT3−/− mice have been reported to have increased stress and anxiety (Balázsfi et al., 2018). Thus, it is possible that these effects also modulate MOC efferent activity. Given the association between stress, anxiety, and hearing loss found in large public health studies (Chung et al., 2015; Grewal and Golub, 2023; Zhang et al., 2024), this potential mechanism is also intriguing.

Using OCT, we were able to record basilar membrane vibrations within the mammalian cochlea of awake animals for the first time. OCT provides a direct measure of cochlear amplification, whereas most of the previous work on MOC efferent physiology uses indirect measures of cochlear function such as ABRs, otoacoustic emissions, and threshold shifts after noise exposure. Most importantly, this technique permitted us to study awake mice, a necessity in understanding the connection between the brain and the cochlea (Chambers et al., 2012).

It could be argued that there are prominent effects of brain state on the MOC reflex that occurs in response to contralateral or ipsilateral noise, which our approach neglected. We considered this when designing the study and decided against it. We reasoned that while there may be effects of brain state on this reflex arc, the strength of the MOC reflex is relatively small (<10 dB) in mice and has high variability (Chambers et al., 2012; Froud et al., 2015), and so the impact of neuromodulatory brain state would be expected to be even smaller and difficult to detect. It should be noted that some of the variability between studies may reflect the species too, with humans and nonhuman primates perhaps having larger responses (Tavartkiladze et al., 1996; Mehta et al., 2021). However, it is difficult to separate out MOC effects from other feedback mechanisms (e.g., LOC effects and brainstem, subcortical, and cortical circuitry) in less-controlled species. At any rate, we concluded that the significance of such an effect on the behavior of mice would be challenging to unravel. Nevertheless, we are excited about the potential for brain state modulation of the MOC reflex to have relevance to human communication. Intriguingly, recent data suggests that there may also be auditory processing abnormalities related to loss of MOC efferent activity (Mondul et al., 2024). Additional data indicates auditory contrast enhancement mostly occurs at the cortical and not subcortical level (Mehta et al., 2021). Finally, the experimental approach we developed to measure organ of Corti vibrations in awake mice using OCT is the first step to advancing the technology to measure the cochlear traveling wave in humans. This will be a critical step to understanding how efferent nerves modulate cochlear physiology when attending to speech in noise.

A weakness of this study is that we only assessed for effects of spontaneous changes in brain state. While this was adequate to detect changes within the IC, it may not have been strong enough to evoke changes within the cochlea. Future work is needed to understand if larger, evoked changes in brain state, such as hearing, seeing, or feeling something that piques the interest of the animal, create MOC efferent effects that are detectable within the cochlea. Our robust experimental approach will permit these more advanced studies of dynamic and chronic changes in cochlear physiology in future experiments; sequential measurements over long periods of time can even be performed in the same animal. Another weakness is that although counts of MOC efferent to OHC synapses are roughly similar in the apex, middle, and base of the mice at the ages we studied, there is, on average, 0.5 more synapses in the middle than in the apex or base (Park et al., 2017; Dörje et al., 2024). Thus, it is possible that the dynamic OCM data we measured in the base may not fully reflect what is happening in the mid-apical turn where we performed vibrometry.

This study also reports the first use of dynamic OCM to assess cellular physiology within the organ of Corti. Together with the analysis of changes in reflectivity, an assessment of dynamic activity within cells can be obtained. The changes are due to the movement of intracellular molecules and are reflective of intracellular transport, synthesis, and metabolism (Münter et al., 2020). The changes we found related to increased cochlear amplification were not only within OHCs, but also in supporting cells, suggesting that either MOC efferents directly alter all these cells or that increased activity of OHCs led to downstream effects on the cells around them. This is certainly feasible since K+ recycling occurs through these cells, and they are all connected via gap junctions. The fact that we saw these changes after MOC efferent activity had been removed (by killing) but during the time window when these cells have normal physiology as assessed by patch-clamp studies (Sato and Santos-Sacchi, 1994; Oghalai et al., 1998; Zhao and Santos-Sacchi, 1998, 1999, 2000; Rajagopalan et al., 2007) indicates that MOC efferents spur long-term changes in cell activity. This result is consistent with data on sound conditioning, whereby chronic exposure to low levels of noise reduces susceptibility to loud noise exposure and is linked to changes in OHC function (Kujawa and Liberman, 1997; Yoshida and Liberman, 2000).

Finally, it is quite common for patients to have normal auditory thresholds yet have symptoms of tinnitus and hyperacusis. While “hidden hearing loss” due to cochlear synaptopathy is a well-recognized cause of this (Sergeyenko et al., 2013; Fernandez et al., 2015; Liberman et al., 2015; Liberman and Kujawa, 2017), it is possible that increased cochlear gain is also a factor. Although we did not detect dynamic effects of brain state on cochlear amplification within the time frame of our measurements (seconds to minutes), long-lasting changes in brain state may modulate cochlear amplification. Stress, anxiety, and depression may thus all play a role in modulating how the cochlea processes sound, such as has been shown in mice with restraint stress (Kujawa and Liberman, 1997; Wang and Liberman, 2002). Thus, we consider it possible that MOC efferent-mediated control of cochlear gain may also underlie some of the associated symptoms of hearing loss that are well established clinically to be modulated by brain state, such as tinnitus and hyperacusis (Langguth et al., 2013, 2024).

Data Availability

Data supporting the findings of this study will be shared upon request. We also have uploaded key datasets to our GitHub site.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIH/NIDCD) R01 DC014450 (J.S.O and M.J.M), R01 DC013774, R01 DC017741, R25 DC019700 (J.S.O), NIH/National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering R01 EB027113 (B.E.A), NIH/NIDCD R21 DC019209 (J.B.D), R01 DC017797 (M.J.M), and the Keck School of Medicine Dean's Research Scholar Program. We thank the Optical Imaging Facility at the Broad CIRM Center of USC and the Translational Imaging Center at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering. We also thank Naomi Quiñones for illustrating the Figure 1 schematic.

  • J.S.O. and B.E.A. are founders of AO technologies, with the goal of translating inner ear imaging technologies for clinical purposes. The other authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to John S. Oghalai at oghalai{at}usc.edu.

SfN exclusive license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Abdala C,
    2. Mishra SK,
    3. Williams TL
    (2009) Considering distortion product otoacoustic emission fine structure in measurements of the medial olivocochlear reflex. J Acoust Soc Am 125:1584–1594. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3068442 pmid:19275316
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Akil O,
    2. Seal RP,
    3. Burke K,
    4. Wang C,
    5. Alemi A,
    6. During M,
    7. Edwards RH,
    8. Lustig LR
    (2012) Restoration of hearing in the VGLUT3 knockout mouse using virally mediated gene therapy. Neuron 75:283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.05.019 pmid:22841313
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Amilhon B, et al.
    (2010) VGLUT3 (vesicular glutamate transporter type 3) contribution to the regulation of serotonergic transmission and anxiety. J Neurosci 30:2198–2210. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5196-09.2010 pmid:20147547
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Applegate BE,
    2. Shelton RL,
    3. Gao SS,
    4. Oghalai JS
    (2011) Imaging high-frequency periodic motion in the mouse ear with coherently interleaved optical coherence tomography. Opt Lett 36:4716–4718. https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.36.004716 pmid:22139294
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Badash I,
    2. Applegate BE,
    3. Oghalai JS
    (2021a) In vivo cochlear imaging provides a tool to study endolymphatic hydrops. J Vestib Res 31:269–276. https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-200718
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Badash I,
    2. Quiñones PM,
    3. Oghalai KJ,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Lui CG,
    6. Macias-Escriva F,
    7. Applegate BE,
    8. Oghalai JS
    (2021b) Endolymphatic hydrops is a marker of synaptopathy following traumatic noise exposure. Front Cell Dev Biol 9:747870. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.747870 pmid:34805158
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Balázsfi D,
    2. Fodor A,
    3. Török B,
    4. Ferenczi S,
    5. Kovács KJ,
    6. Haller J,
    7. Zelena D
    (2018) Enhanced innate fear and altered stress axis regulation in VGluT3 knockout mice. Stress 21:151–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253890.2017.1423053
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Beatty J
    (1982) Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol Bull 91:276–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.276
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Beim JA,
    2. Oxenham AJ,
    3. Wojtczak M
    (2019) No effects of attention or visual perceptual load on cochlear function, as measured with stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 146:1475–1491. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5123391 pmid:31472524
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Bidelman GM,
    2. Bhagat SP
    (2015) Right-ear advantage drives the link between olivocochlear efferent “antimasking” and speech-in-noise listening benefits. Neuroreport 26:483–487. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000376
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Bobbin RP,
    2. Konishi T
    (1971) Acetylcholine mimics crossed olivocochlear bundle stimulation. Nat New Biol 231:222–223. https://doi.org/10.1038/newbio231222a0
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Boyev KP,
    2. Liberman MC,
    3. Brown MC
    (2002) Effects of anesthesia on efferent-mediated adaptation of the DPOAE. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 3:362–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101620020044 pmid:12382109
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Brown MC,
    2. Nuttall AL
    (1984) Efferent control of cochlear inner hair cell responses in the guinea-pig. J Physiol 354:625–646. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1984.sp015396 pmid:6481647
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Brown MC,
    2. Vetter DE
    (2009) Olivocochlear neuron central anatomy is normal in alpha 9 knockout mice. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 10:64–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-008-0144-9 pmid:18941837
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Chambers AR,
    2. Hancock KE,
    3. Maison SF,
    4. Liberman MC,
    5. Polley DB
    (2012) Sound-evoked olivocochlear activation in unanesthetized mice. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13:209–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10162-011-0306-Z pmid:22160753
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Chambers AR,
    2. Resnik J,
    3. Yuan Y,
    4. Whitton JP,
    5. Edge AS,
    6. Liberman MC,
    7. Polley DB
    (2016) Central gain restores auditory processing following near-complete cochlear denervation. Neuron 89:867–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.12.041 pmid:26833137
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Chertoff ME,
    2. Brownell WE
    (1994) Characterization of cochlear outer hair cell turgor. Am J Physiol 266:C467–79. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.1994.266.2.C467
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Chung SD,
    2. Hung SH,
    3. Lin HC,
    4. Sheu JJ
    (2015) Association between sudden sensorineural hearing loss and anxiety disorder: a population-based study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272:2673–2678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-014-3235-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Cooper NP,
    2. Guinan JJ
    (2003) Separate mechanical processes underlie fast and slow effects of medial olivocochlear efferent activity. J Physiol 548:307–312. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2003.039081 pmid:12611913
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Cooper NP,
    2. Guinan JJ
    (2006) Efferent-mediated control of basilar membrane motion. J Physiol 576:49–54. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2006.114991 pmid:16901947
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Dallos P,
    2. He DZ,
    3. Lin X,
    4. Sziklai I,
    5. Mehta S,
    6. Evans BN
    (1997) Acetylcholine, outer hair cell electromotility, and the cochlear amplifier. J Neurosci 17:2212–2226. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-06-02212.1997 pmid:9045745
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Darrow KN,
    2. Maison SF,
    3. Liberman MC
    (2006) Cochlear efferent feedback balances interaural sensitivity. Nat Neurosci 9:1474–1476. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1807 pmid:17115038
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. de Gee JW,
    2. Tsetsos K,
    3. Schwabe L,
    4. Urai AE,
    5. McCormick D,
    6. McGinley MJ,
    7. Donner TH
    (2020) Pupil-linked phasic arousal predicts a reduction of choice bias across species and decision domains. Elife 9:1–25. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54014 pmid:32543372
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Delano PH,
    2. Elgueda D,
    3. Hamame CM,
    4. Robles L
    (2007) Selective attention to visual stimuli reduces cochlear sensitivity in chinchillas. J Neurosci 27:4146–4153. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3702-06.2007 pmid:17428992
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Dewey JB,
    2. Xia A,
    3. Müller U,
    4. Belyantseva IA,
    5. Applegate BE,
    6. Oghalai JS
    (2018) Mammalian auditory hair cell bundle stiffness affects frequency tuning by increasing coupling along the length of the cochlea. Cell Rep 23:2915–2927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.05.024 pmid:29874579
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Dewey JB,
    2. Applegate BE,
    3. Oghalai JS
    (2019) Amplification and suppression of traveling waves along the mouse organ of Corti: evidence for spatial variation in the longitudinal coupling of outer hair cell-generated forces. J Neurosci 39:1805–1816. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2608-18.2019 pmid:30651330
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    1. Dewey JB,
    2. Altoe A,
    3. Shera CA,
    4. Applegate BE,
    5. Oghalai JS
    (2021) Cochlear outer hair cell electromotility enhances organ of Corti motion on a cycle-by-cycle basis at high frequencies in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118:e2025206118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025206118 pmid:34686590
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Dörje NM,
    2. Shvachiy L,
    3. Kück F,
    4. Outeiro TF,
    5. Strenzke N,
    6. Beutner D,
    7. Setz C
    (2024) Age-related alterations in efferent medial olivocochlear-outer hair cell and primary auditory ribbon synapses in CBA/J mice. Front Cell Neurosci 18:1412450. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2024.1412450 pmid:38988659
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Elgoyhen AB
    (2023) The a9a10 acetylcholine receptor: a non-neuronal nicotinic receptor. Pharmacol Res 190:106735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106735
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Elgoyhen AB,
    2. Johnson DS,
    3. Boulter J,
    4. Vetter DE,
    5. Heinemann S
    (1994) Alpha 9: an acetylcholine receptor with novel pharmacological properties expressed in rat cochlear hair cells. Cell 79:705–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(94)90555-X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Fallah E,
    2. Strimbu CE,
    3. Olson ES
    (2019) Nonlinearity and amplification in cochlear responses to single and multi-tone stimuli. Hear Res 377:271–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2019.04.001 pmid:31015062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Fernandez KA,
    2. Jeffers PWC,
    3. Lall K,
    4. Liberman MC,
    5. Kujawa SG
    (2015) Aging after noise exposure: acceleration of cochlear synaptopathy in “recovered” ears. J Neurosci 35:7509–7520. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5138-14.2015 pmid:25972177
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Froud KE,
    2. Wong ACY,
    3. Cederholm JME,
    4. Klugmann M,
    5. Sandow SL,
    6. Julien JP,
    7. Ryan AF,
    8. Housley GD
    (2015) Type II spiral ganglion afferent neurons drive medial olivocochlear reflex suppression of the cochlear amplifier. Nat Commun 6:7115. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8115 pmid:25965946
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Fuchs PA,
    2. Lauer AM
    (2019) Efferent inhibition of the cochlea. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 9:a033530. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a033530 pmid:30082454
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. Grewal M,
    2. Golub J
    (2023) Association between hearing loss and multiple negative emotional states in the US Hispanic population. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 168:1047–1053. https://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.208 pmid:36939491
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Guinan JJ
    (2006) Olivocochlear efferents: anatomy, physiology, function, and the measurement of efferent effects in humans. Ear Hear 27:589–607. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aud.0000240507.83072.e7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Guinan JJ
    (2018) Olivocochlear efferents: their action, effects, measurement and uses, and the impact of the new conception of cochlear mechanical responses. Hear Res 362:38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.12.012 pmid:29291948
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Guinan JJ,
    2. Cooper NP
    (2008) Medial olivocochlear efferent inhibition of basilar-membrane responses to clicks: evidence for two modes of cochlear mechanical excitation. J Acoust Soc Am 124:1080–1092. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2949435 pmid:18681598
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. He DZ,
    2. Dallos P
    (1999) Somatic stiffness of cochlear outer hair cells is voltage-dependent. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:8223–8228. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.14.8223 pmid:10393976
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. He DZ,
    2. Jia S,
    3. Dallos P
    (2003) Prestin and the dynamic stiffness of cochlear outer hair cells. J Neurosci 23:9089–9096. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-27-09089.2003 pmid:14534242
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Jawadi Z,
    2. Applegate BE,
    3. Oghalai JS
    (2015) Optical coherence tomography to measure sound-induced motions within the mouse organ of Corti in vivo (Sokolowski B, ed). Methods Mol Biol 1427:449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3615-1_24 pmid:27259941
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Kakehata S,
    2. Santos-Sacchi J
    (1995) Membrane tension directly shifts voltage dependence of outer hair cell motility and associated gating charge. Biophys J 68:2190–2197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(95)80401-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Kakehata S,
    2. Nakagawa T,
    3. Takasaka T,
    4. Akaike N
    (1993) Cellular mechanism of acetylcholine-induced response in dissociated outer hair cells of guinea-pig cochlea. J Physiol 463:227–244. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1993.sp019592 pmid:7504105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Kalinec F,
    2. Zhang M,
    3. Urrutia R,
    4. Kalinec G
    (2000) Rho GTPases mediate the regulation of cochlear outer hair cell motility by acetylcholine. J Biol Chem 275:28000–28005. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M004917200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Kujawa SG,
    2. Glattke TJ,
    3. Fallon M,
    4. Bobbin RP
    (1992) Intracochlear application of acetylcholine alters sound-induced mechanical events within the cochlear partition. Hear Res 61:106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(92)90041-K
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Kujawa SG,
    2. Liberman MC
    (1997) Conditioning-related protection from acoustic injury: effects of chronic deefferentation and sham surgery. J Neurophysiol 78:3095–3106. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1997.78.6.3095
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Kujawa SG,
    2. Liberman MC
    (1999) Long-term sound conditioning enhances cochlear sensitivity. J Neurophysiol 82:863–873. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1999.82.2.863
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Langguth B,
    2. de Ridder D,
    3. Schlee W,
    4. Kleinjung T
    (2024) Tinnitus: clinical insights in its pathophysiology-a perspective. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 25:249–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-024-00939-0 pmid:38532055
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Langguth B,
    2. Kreuzer PM,
    3. Kleinjung T,
    4. De Ridder D
    (2013) Tinnitus: causes and clinical management. Lancet Neurol 12:920–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70160-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Lauer AM,
    2. Jimenez SV,
    3. Delano PH
    (2022) Olivocochlear efferent effects on perception and behavior. Hear Res 419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2021.108207 pmid:33674070
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Lee HY,
    2. Raphael PD,
    3. Park J,
    4. Ellerbee AK,
    5. Applegate BE,
    6. Oghalai JS
    (2015) Noninvasive in vivo imaging reveals differences between tectorial membrane and basilar membrane traveling waves in the mouse cochlea. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:3128–3133. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500038112 pmid:25737536
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Liberman MC,
    2. Guinan JJ Jr.
    (1998) Feedback control of the auditory periphery: anti-masking effects of middle ear muscles vs olivocochlear efferents. J Commun Disord 31:471–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(98)00019-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Liberman MC,
    2. Kujawa SG
    (2017) Cochlear synaptopathy in acquired sensorineural hearing loss: manifestations and mechanisms. Hear Res 349:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.01.003 pmid:28087419
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Liberman LD,
    2. Suzuki J,
    3. Liberman MC
    (2015) Dynamics of cochlear synaptopathy after acoustic overexposure. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 16:205–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-015-0510-3 pmid:25676132
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Lopez-Poveda EA
    (2018) Olivocochlear efferents in animals and humans: from anatomy to clinical relevance. Front Neurol 9:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2018.00001 pmid:29403429
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Lue AJ,
    2. Zhao HB,
    3. Brownell WE
    (2001) Chlorpromazine alters outer hair cell electromotility. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:71–76. https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2001.116446
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Lui CG,
    2. Kim W,
    3. Dewey JB,
    4. Macías-Escrivá FD,
    5. Ratnayake K,
    6. Oghalai JS,
    7. Applegate BE
    (2021) In vivo functional imaging of the human middle ear with a hand-held optical coherence tomography device. Biomed Opt Express 12:5196. https://doi.org/10.1364/BOE.430935 pmid:34513251
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. ↵
    1. Maison SF,
    2. Luebke AE,
    3. Liberman MC,
    4. Zuo J
    (2002) Efferent protection from acoustic injury is mediated via alpha9 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors on outer hair cells. J Neurosci 22:10838–10846. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-24-10838.2002 pmid:12486177
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Maruthy S,
    2. Kumar UA,
    3. Gnanateja GN
    (2017) Functional interplay between the putative measures of rostral and caudal efferent regulation of speech perception in noise. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 18:635–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-017-0623-y pmid:28447225
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. McCormick DA,
    2. McGinley MJ,
    3. Salkoff DB
    (2015) Brain state dependent activity in the cortex and thalamus. Curr Opin Neurobiol 31:133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.10.003 pmid:25460069
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. McGill M,
    2. Hight AE,
    3. Watanabe YL,
    4. Parthasarathy A,
    5. Cai D,
    6. Clayton K,
    7. Hancock KE,
    8. Takesian A,
    9. Kujawa SG,
    10. Polley DB
    (2022) Neural signatures of auditory hypersensitivity following acoustic trauma. Elife 11:e80015. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.80015 pmid:36111669
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. McGinley MJ
    (2020) Brain states: sensory modulations all the way down. Curr Biol 30:R1263–R1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.07.094
    OpenUrlPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. McGinley MJ,
    2. David S,
    3. McCormick D
    (2015a) Cortical membrane potential signature of optimal states for sensory signal detection. Neuron 87:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.05.038 pmid:26074005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. McGinley MJ,
    2. Vinck M,
    3. Reimer J,
    4. Batista-Brito R,
    5. Zagha E,
    6. Cadwell CR,
    7. Tolias AS,
    8. Cardin JA,
    9. McCormick DA
    (2015b) Waking state: rapid variations modulate neural and behavioral responses. Neuron 87:1143–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.012 pmid:26402600
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Mehta AH,
    2. Feng L,
    3. Oxenham AJ
    (2021) Neural auditory contrast enhancement in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118:e2024794118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2024794118 pmid:34266949
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Melcher JR,
    2. Guinan JJ,
    3. Knudson IM,
    4. Kiang NYS
    (1996) Generators of the brainstem auditory evoked potential in cat. II. Correlating lesion sites with waveform changes. Hear Res 93:28–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(95)00179-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Mishra SK,
    2. Lutman ME
    (2014) Top-down influences of the medial olivocochlear efferent system in speech perception in noise. PLoS One 9:e85756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085756 pmid:24465686
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Mondul JA,
    2. Burke K,
    3. Morley B,
    4. Lauer AM
    (2024) Alpha9alpha10 knockout mice show altered physiological and behavioral responses to signals in masking noise. J Acoust Soc Am 155:3183–3194. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0025985 pmid:38738939
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Münter M,
    2. vom Endt M,
    3. Pieper M,
    4. Casper M,
    5. Ahrens M,
    6. Kohlfaerber T,
    7. Rahmanzadeh R,
    8. König P,
    9. Hüttmann G,
    10. Schulz-Hildebrandt H
    (2020) Dynamic contrast in scanning microscopic OCT. Opt Lett 45:4766. https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.396134
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Nankali A,
    2. Shera CA,
    3. Applegate BE,
    4. Oghalai JS
    (2022) Interplay between traveling-wave propagation and amplification at the apex of the mouse cochlea. Biophys J 121:2940–2951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2022.06.029 pmid:35778839
    OpenUrlPubMed
  71. ↵
    NIH-NIDCD (2023) Age-related hearing loss (Presbycusis). NIH Pub No 23-DC-4235 Available at: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/age-related-hearing-loss [Accessed July 25, 2023].
  72. ↵
    1. Oghalai JS
    (2004) Chlorpromazine inhibits cochlear function in guinea pigs. Hear Res 198:59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2004.03.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Oghalai JS
    (2023) Linear mixed-effect modeling of organ of Corti vibratory tuning curves. Hear Res 435:108820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2023.108820 pmid:37276685
    OpenUrlPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Oghalai JS
    (2024) GitHub repository. Available at: https://github.com/jso111/
  75. ↵
    1. Oghalai JS,
    2. Holt JR,
    3. Nakagawa T,
    4. Jung TM,
    5. Coker NJ,
    6. Jenkins HA,
    7. Eatock RA,
    8. Brownell WE
    (1998) Ionic currents and electromotility in inner ear hair cells from humans. J Neurophysiol 79:2235–2239. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1998.79.4.2235
    OpenUrlPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Oghalai JS,
    2. Zhao H-B,
    3. Kutz JW,
    4. Brownell WE
    (2000) Voltage- and tension-dependent lipid mobility in the outer hair cell plasma membrane. Science 287:658–661. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5453.658 pmid:10650000
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. ↵
    1. Park SY,
    2. Park JM,
    3. Back SA,
    4. Yeo SW,
    5. Park SN
    (2017) Functional significance of medial olivocochlear system morphology in the mouse cochlea. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 10:137–142. https://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2016.00444 pmid:27464515
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Puria S,
    2. Guinan J Jr.,
    3. Liberman MC
    (1996) Olivocochlear reflex assays: effects of contralateral sound on compound action potentials versus ear-canal distortion products. J Acoust Soc Am 99:500–507. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.414508
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. ↵
    1. Quiñones PM,
    2. Meenderink SWF,
    3. Applegate BE,
    4. Oghalai JS
    (2022) Unloading outer hair cell bundles in vivo does not yield evidence of spontaneous oscillations in the mouse cochlea. Hear Res 423:108473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2022.108473 pmid:35287989
    OpenUrlPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Rajagopalan L,
    2. Greeson JN,
    3. Xia A,
    4. Liu H,
    5. Sturm A,
    6. Raphael RM,
    7. Davidson AL,
    8. Oghalai JS,
    9. Pereira FA,
    10. Brownell WE
    (2007) Tuning of the outer hair cell motor by membrane cholesterol. J Biol Chem 282:36659–36670. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M705078200 pmid:17933870
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. Reimer J,
    2. McGinley MJ,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. Rodenkirch C,
    5. Wang Q,
    6. McCormick DA,
    7. Tolias AS
    (2016) Pupil fluctuations track rapid changes in adrenergic and cholinergic activity in cortex. Nat Commun 7:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13289 pmid:27824036
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Richardson IEG
    (2003) H.264 and MPEG-4 video compression: video coding for next-generation multimedia. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  83. ↵
    1. Romero GE,
    2. Trussell LO
    (2022) Central circuitry and function of the cochlear efferent systems. Hear Res 425:108516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2022.108516
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Ruel J, et al.
    (2008) Impairment of SLC17A8 encoding vesicular glutamate transporter-3, VGLUT3, underlies nonsyndromic deafness DFNA25 and inner hair cell dysfunction in null mice. Am J Hum Genet 83:278–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.07.008 pmid:18674745
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Salvi R,
    2. Sun W,
    3. Ding D,
    4. Chen GD,
    5. Lobarinas E,
    6. Wang J,
    7. Radziwon K,
    8. Auerbach BD
    (2017) Inner hair cell loss disrupts hearing and cochlear function leading to sensory deprivation and enhanced central auditory gain. Front Neurosci 10:621. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00621 pmid:28149271
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Salvi R,
    2. Radziwon K,
    3. Manohar S,
    4. Auerbach B,
    5. Ding D,
    6. Liu X,
    7. Lau C,
    8. Chen YC,
    9. Chen GD
    (2021) Review: neural mechanisms of tinnitus and hyperacusis in acute drug-induced ototoxicity. Am J Audiol 30:901–915. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJA-20-00023 pmid:33465315
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Santos-Sacchi J
    (1991) Reversible inhibition of voltage-dependent outer hair cell motility and capacitance. J Neurosci 11:3096–3110. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.11-10-03096.1991 pmid:1941076
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. ↵
    1. Santos-Sacchi J,
    2. Kakehata S,
    3. Takahashi S
    (1998) Effects of membrane potential on the voltage dependence of motility-related charge in outer hair cells of the guinea-pig. J Physiol 510:225–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.1998.225bz.x pmid:9625879
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. ↵
    1. Santos-Sacchi J,
    2. Shen WX,
    3. Zheng J,
    4. Dallos P
    (2001) Effects of membrane potential and tension on prestin, the outer hair cell lateral membrane motor protein. J Physiol 531:661–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.0661h.x pmid:11251048
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. ↵
    1. Santos-Sacchi J,
    2. Song L,
    3. Zheng J,
    4. Nuttall AL
    (2006) Control of mammalian cochlear amplification by chloride anions. J Neurosci 26:3992–3998. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4548-05.2006 pmid:16611815
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. ↵
    1. Santos-Sacchi J,
    2. Wu M
    (2004) Protein- and lipid-reactive agents alter outer hair cell lateral membrane motor charge movement. J Membr Biol 200:83–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00232-004-0699-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. ↵
    1. Sato Y,
    2. Santos-Sacchi J
    (1994) Cell coupling in the supporting cells of Corti’s organ: sensitivity to intracellular H+ and Ca+2. Hear Res 80:21–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(94)90004-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Schäfer MKH,
    2. Varoqui H,
    3. Defamie N,
    4. Weihe E,
    5. Erickson JD
    (2002) Molecular cloning and functional identification of mouse vesicular glutamate transporter 3 and its expression in subsets of novel excitatory neurons. J Biol Chem 277:50734–50748. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M206738200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  94. ↵
    1. Seal RP, et al.
    (2008) Sensorineural deafness and seizures in mice lacking vesicular glutamate transporter 3. Neuron 57:263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.11.032 pmid:18215623
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Sergeyenko Y,
    2. Lall K,
    3. Liberman MC,
    4. Kujawa SG
    (2013) Age-related cochlear synaptopathy: an early-onset contributor to auditory functional decline. J Neurosci 33:13686–13694. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1783-13.2013 pmid:23966690
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  96. ↵
    1. Slika E,
    2. Fuchs PA
    (2024) Genetic tools for studying cochlear inhibition. Front Cell Neurosci 18:1372948. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2024.1372948 pmid:38560293
    OpenUrlPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Smith DW,
    2. Keil A
    (2015) The biological role of the medial olivocochlear efferents in hearing: separating evolved function from exaptation. Front Syst Neurosci 9:12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2015.00012 pmid:25762901
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. ↵
    1. Song Y,
    2. Xia A,
    3. Lee HY,
    4. Wang R,
    5. Ricci AJ,
    6. Oghalai JS
    (2015) Activity-dependent regulation of prestin expression in mouse outer hair cells. J Neurophysiol 113:3531–3542. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00869.2014 pmid:25810486
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    1. Sugawara A,
    2. & Iwasa M,
    3. Adachi M KHM,
    4. Sugawara M,
    5. Iwasa KH
    (2000) Effect of turgor pressure on outer hair cell motility. J Acoust Soc Am 108:2299–2306. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1314396
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Sziklai I,
    2. Dallos P
    (1993) Acetylcholine controls the gain of the voltage-to-movement converter in isolated outer hair cells. Acta Otolaryngol 113:326–329. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489309135818
    OpenUrlPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Sziklai I,
    2. Dallos P
    (1997) Hyposmotic swelling induces magnitude and gain change in the electromotile performance of isolated outer hair cells. Acta Otolaryngol 117:222–225. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489709117775
    OpenUrlPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Sziklai I,
    2. He DZ,
    3. Dallos P
    (1996) Effect of acetylcholine and GABA on the transfer function of electromotility in isolated outer hair cells. Hear Res 95:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(96)00026-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Szonyi M,
    2. He DZ,
    3. Ribari O,
    4. Sziklai I,
    5. Dallos P
    (2001) Intracellular calcium and outer hair cell electromotility. Brain Res 922:65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-8993(01)03150-X
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Tavartkiladze GA,
    2. Frolenkov GI,
    3. Artamasov S V
    (1996) Ipsilateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emission: role of the medial olivocochlear system. Acta Otolaryngol 116:213–218. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489609137826
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. van der Heijden M,
    2. Joris PX
    (2003) Cochlear phase and amplitude retrieved from the auditory nerve at arbitrary frequencies. J Neurosci 23:9194–9198. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-27-09194.2003 pmid:14534253
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Versteegh CPCC,
    2. Van Der Heijden M
    (2012) Basilar membrane responses to tones and tone complexes: nonlinear effects of stimulus intensity. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13:785–798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0345-0 pmid:22935903
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Vetter DE,
    2. Katz E,
    3. Maison SF,
    4. Taranda JN,
    5. Turcan S,
    6. Ballestero J,
    7. Liberman MC,
    8. Elgoyhen ABN,
    9. Boulter J
    (2007) The alpha10 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunit is required for normal synaptic function and integrity of the olivocochlear system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:20594–20599. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0708545105 pmid:18077337
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  108. ↵
    1. Vetter DE,
    2. Liberman MC,
    3. Mann J,
    4. Barhanin J,
    5. Boulter J,
    6. Brown MC,
    7. Saffiote-Kolman J,
    8. Heinemann SF,
    9. Elgoyhen AB
    (1999) Role of alpha9 nicotinic ACh receptor subunits in the development and function of cochlear efferent innervation. Neuron 23:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80756-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Wang Y,
    2. Liberman MC
    (2002) Restraint stress and protection from acoustic injury in mice. Hear Res 165:96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(02)00289-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Xia A,
    2. Song Y,
    3. Wang R,
    4. Gao SSS,
    5. Clifton W,
    6. Raphael P,
    7. Chao S-I,
    8. Pereira FA,
    9. Groves AK,
    10. Oghalai JS
    (2013) Prestin regulation and function in residual outer hair cells after noise-induced hearing loss. PLoS One 8:e82602. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082602 pmid:24376553
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. ↵
    1. Yoshida N,
    2. Liberman MC
    (2000) Sound conditioning reduces noise-induced permanent threshold shift in mice. Hear Res 148:213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(00)00161-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. ↵
    1. Yu N,
    2. Zhu ML,
    3. Johnson B,
    4. Liu YP,
    5. Jones RO,
    6. Zhao HB
    (2008) Prestin up-regulation in chronic salicylate (aspirin) administration: an implication of functional dependence of prestin expression. Cell Mol Life Sci 65:2407–2418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-008-8195-y pmid:18560754
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Zhang ZQ,
    2. Li JY,
    3. Ge ST,
    4. Ma TY,
    5. Li FY,
    6. Lu JL,
    7. Si SR,
    8. Cui ZZ,
    9. Jin YL,
    10. Jin XH
    (2024) Bidirectional associations between sensorineural hearing loss and depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis. Front Public Health 11:1281689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1281689 pmid:38259802
    OpenUrlPubMed
  114. ↵
    1. Zhao HB,
    2. Liu LM,
    3. Yu N,
    4. Zhu Y,
    5. Mei L,
    6. Chen J,
    7. Liang C
    (2022) Efferent neurons control hearing sensitivity and protect hearing from noise through the regulation of gap junctions between cochlear supporting cells. J Neurophysiol 127:313–327. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00468.2021 pmid:34907797
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. ↵
    1. Zhao HB,
    2. Santos-Sacchi J
    (1998) Effect of membrane tension on gap junctional conductance of supporting cells in Corti’s organ. J Gen Physiol 112:447–455. https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.112.4.447 pmid:9758863
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  116. ↵
    1. Zhao HB,
    2. Santos-Sacchi J
    (1999) Auditory collusion and a coupled couple of outer hair cells. Nature 399:359–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/20686
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Zhao HB,
    2. Santos-Sacchi J
    (2000) Voltage gating of gap junctions in cochlear supporting cells: evidence for nonhomotypic channels. J Membr Biol 175:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002320001051
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. ↵
    1. Zheng J,
    2. Deo N,
    3. Zou Y,
    4. Grosh K,
    5. Nuttall AL
    (2007) Chlorpromazine alters cochlear mechanics and amplification: in vivo evidence for a role of stiffness modulation in the organ of Corti. J Neurophysiol 97:994–1004. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00774.2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 45 (15)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 45, Issue 15
9 Apr 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Pathway Potentiates Cochlear Amplification in Response to Hearing Loss
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
The Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Pathway Potentiates Cochlear Amplification in Response to Hearing Loss
Patricia M. Quiñones, Michelle Pei, Hemant Srivastava, Ariadna Cobo-Cuan, Marcela A. Morán, Bong Jik Kim, Clayton B. Walker, Michael J. Serafino, Frank Macias-Escriva, Juemei Wang, James B. Dewey, Brian E. Applegate, Matthew J. McGinley, John S. Oghalai
Journal of Neuroscience 9 April 2025, 45 (15) e2103242025; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2103-24.2025

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
The Medial Olivocochlear Efferent Pathway Potentiates Cochlear Amplification in Response to Hearing Loss
Patricia M. Quiñones, Michelle Pei, Hemant Srivastava, Ariadna Cobo-Cuan, Marcela A. Morán, Bong Jik Kim, Clayton B. Walker, Michael J. Serafino, Frank Macias-Escriva, Juemei Wang, James B. Dewey, Brian E. Applegate, Matthew J. McGinley, John S. Oghalai
Journal of Neuroscience 9 April 2025, 45 (15) e2103242025; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2103-24.2025
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Data Availability
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • Peer Review
  • PDF

Keywords

  • brain state
  • cochlea
  • feedback
  • hearing
  • optical coherence tomography
  • outer hair cell
  • pupillometry

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

  • Sex differences in histamine regulation of striatal dopamine
  • The Neurobiology of Cognitive Fatigue and Its Influence on Effort-Based Choice
  • Zooming in and out: Selective attention modulates color signals in early visual cortex for narrow and broad ranges of task-relevant features
Show more Research Articles

Systems/Circuits

  • The Neurobiology of Cognitive Fatigue and Its Influence on Effort-Based Choice
  • Gestational Chlorpyrifos Exposure Imparts Lasting Alterations to the Rat Somatosensory Cortex
  • Transcranial focused ultrasound modulates feedforward and feedback cortico-thalamo-cortical pathways by selectively activating excitatory neurons
Show more Systems/Circuits
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.