Auditory Brainstem Response to Complex Sounds Predicts Self-Reported Speech-in-Noise Performance

Abstract

Purpose To compare the ability of the auditory brainstem response to complex sounds (cABR) to predict subjective ratings of speech understanding in noise on the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ; Gatehouse & Noble, 2004) relative to the predictive ability of the Quick Speech-in-Noise test (QuickSIN; Killion, Niquette, Gudmundsen, Revit, & Banerjee, 2004) and pure-tone hearing thresholds. Method Participants included 111 middle- to older-age adults (range= 45–78) with audiometric configurations ranging from normal hearing levels to moderate sensorineural hearing loss. In addition to using audiometric testing, the authors also used such evaluation measures as the QuickSIN, the SSQ, and the cABR. Results Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that the inclusion of brainstem variables in a model with QuickSIN, hearing thresholds, and age accounted for 30% of the variance in the Speech subtest of the SSQ, compared with significantly less variance (19%) when brainstem variables were not included. Conclusion The authors’ results demonstrate the cABR’s efficacy for predicting self-reported speech-in-noise perception difficulties. The fact that the cABR predicts more variance in self-reported speech-in-noise (SIN) perception than either the QuickSIN or hearing thresholds indicates that the cABR provides additional insight into an individual’s ability to hear in background noise. In addition, the findings underscore the link between the cABR and hearing in noise.

Age-Related Changes in the Relationship Between Auditory Brainstem Responses and Envelope-Following Responses

“…The ABR wave amplitudes are an indicator of overall auditory neuronal number and short-term synchrony of each generator and are a better predictor of peripheral synaptic function than ABR thresholds (Kujawa and Liberman 2009;Sergeyenko et al 2013). The FFRs and EFRs are an indicator of sustained temporal processing, emphasizing the functions of more central generators (Kuwada et al 2002;Parthasarathy and Bartlett 2012), given a normal or altered number of hair cells and ribbon synapses, and have been observed to be better predictors of speech perception in quiet and in noise (Anderson et al 2013). Measuring all three metrics would provide a better understanding of an individual's auditory capacity, enabling the design of effective interventional strategies based on the kind of deficits seen for that particular pathology.…”

Development of Phase Locking and Frequency Representation in the Infant Frequency-Following Response

“…This phase locking represents the temporal structure of the stimulus (Galbraith, Arbagey, Branski, Comerci, & Rector, 1995). Therefore, it is possible to analyze the integrity of temporal processing of the midbrain using the FFR (Anderson, Parbery-Clark, White-Schwoch, & Kraus, 2013). Spectral information is also well represented in the FFR, with clear peaks at the first and second formants (Krishnan, 2002;Krishnan, Xu, Gandour, & Cariani, 2005).…”

Speech-Evoked Brainstem Response

“…Normative data for young adults (19-36 years old) with normal hearing and analysis of all the waves are presented in Note: Parametric study in normal children. The majority of studies about speech ABR assessment was performed with monoaural stimulus on the right ear [13,24,29,39,49,50]. The choice for the assessment only on the right ear is related to the advantage of the left hemisphere for processing of language sounds.…”

“…Anderson et al [49] reported that the elderly usually have a hearing loss, thus an auditory training program should be recommended along the selection and adaptation of hearing aid suitable for need each elderly.…”

“…Approximately, 90.5% of the previous studies have used alternating polarity [13,22,23,28,29,39,45,47,49,50]. The choice for this type of polarity should be the reduction of artifacts and cochlear microphonic [51].…”