Results of the current study elucidate the potentially positive impact of CV health on hearing sensitivity over time. This finding was particularly robust among older adults.

Hearing thresholds have been shown to exhibit periodic minima and maxima, a pattern known as threshold microstructure. Microstructure has previously been linked to spontaneous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs) and normal cochlear function. However, SOAEs at high frequencies (>4 kHz) have been associated with hearing loss or cochlear pathology in some reports. Microstructure would not be expected near these high-frequency SOAEs. Psychophysical tuning curves (PTCs), the expression of frequency selectivity, may also be altered by SOAEs. Prior comparisons of tuning between ears with and without SOAEs demonstrated sharper tuning in ears with emissions. Here, threshold microstructure and PTCs were compared at SOAE frequencies ranging between 1.2 and 13.9 kHz using subjects without SOAEs as controls. Results indicate: (1) Threshold microstructure is observable in the vicinity of SOAEs of all frequencies; (2) PTCs are influenced by SOAEs, resulting in shifted tuning curve tips, multiple tips, or inversion. High frequency SOAEs show a greater effect on PTC morphology. The influence of most SOAEs at high frequencies on threshold microstructure and PTCs is consistent with those at lower frequencies, suggesting that high-frequency SOAEs reflect the same cochlear processes that lead to SOAEs at lower frequencies.

No abstract

Formal training in communicating science to a general audience is not traditionally included in graduate and postdoctoral-level training programs. However, the ability to effectively communicate science is increasingly recognized as a responsibility of professional scientists. We describe a science communication professional development opportunity in which scientists at the graduate-level and above annotate primary scientific literature, effectively translating complex research into an accessible educational tool for undergraduate students. We examined different types of annotator training, each with its own populations and evaluation methods, and surveyed participants about why they participated, the confidence they have in their self-reported science communication skills, and how they plan to leverage this experience to advance their science careers. Additionally, to confirm that annotators were successful in their goal of making the original research article easier to read, we performed a readability analysis on written annotations and compared that with the original text of the published paper. We found that both types of annotator training led to a gain in participants’ self-reported confidence in their science communication skills. Also, the annotations were significantly more readable than the original paper, indicating that the training was effective. The results of this work highlight the potential of annotator training to serve as a value-added component of scientific training at and above the graduate level.

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent chronic condition. In addition to age, sex, noise exposure, and genetic predisposition, cardiovascular disease and its antecedents may precipitate hearing loss. Of emerging interest is the connection between diabetes and auditory dysfunction. Cross-sectional studies consistently suggest that prevalence of hearing loss is higher in persons with diabetes compared with those without diabetes, especially among younger persons. Furthermore, longitudinal studies have demonstrated higher incidence of hearing loss in persons with diabetes compared to those without diabetes. These findings seem to hold for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, although considerably more population-based evidence is available for type 2 diabetes. Data on gestational diabetes and hearing outcomes are limited, as are data relating diabetes to otologic sequelae such as fungal infection. Here, we examine evidence from epidemiologic studies of diabetes and hearing loss and consider clinical and laboratory data where population-based data are lacking.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The United States Preventative Service Taskforce recently determined that there was insufficient evidence to recommend hearing screening in adults. Purpose To determine the age to screen adults in the U.S. for hearing loss and identify factors related to increased odds of hearing loss. Research Design Epidemiological Cross-Sectional Study. Study Sample Data from 3,409 individuals aged 20–69 years(y) were analyzed from the 1999–2000 and 2000–2002 cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Data Collection and Analysis Hearing sensitivity from 0.5–8 kHz was assessed and hearing loss was defined as pure tone average 0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz (PTA4) > 15 dBHL for the worse ear. Thresholds were examined separately for men and women in 2-year intervals. A multivariate ordinal regression model adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education was used to examine relationship to determinants. Results Slight (>15 dBHL) hearing loss based on threshold at a single audiometric frequency was first evident in males aged 28–29y. For females, this occurred at age 34–35y. The age at which average PTA4 increased above 15 dBHL (slight hearing loss) was 46–47y for males and 56–57y for females. Multivariate ordinal regression revealed the following “high risk” factors: increased age, male sex, tinnitus, perceived hearing loss, and diabetes. Conclusions For the function of primary prevention, these data suggest screening should initiate at ∼30y for males and 35y for females, the ages when average hearing thresholds at a single frequency can be classified as slight hearing loss. For secondary prevention, the recommended screening ages are higher – 45y for males and 55y for females. Hearing screening is recommended for asymptomatic adults, especially those with high risk factors. Our results also highlight the limitations of PTA4 in identifying early indices of hearing loss.