Effects of noise exposure on young adults with normal audiograms II: Behavioral measures

Prendergast, Garreth; Millman, Rebecca E.; Guest, Hannah; Munro, Kevin J.; Kluk, Karolina; Dewey, Rebecca Susan; Hall, Deborah A.; Heinz, Michael G.; Plack, Christopher J.

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2017.10.007

Cited by 106 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 54 publications

(95 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, we did not find a significant pairwise correlation between any of these behavioural and objective measures. This accords with recent large-cohort studies that have not found a correlation of proposed measures of cochlear synaptopathy to the lifetime noise exposure of the participants or their speech-in-noise perception 37,71,72 . This may suggest that either cochlear synaptopathy has little influence on auditory difficulty or that it has no significant prevalence, at least in normal-hearing people.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Individual differences in the attentional modulation of the human auditory brainstem response to speech inform on speech-in-noise deficits

Saiz-Alía

Forte

Reichenbach

2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with normal hearing thresholds can nonetheless have difficulty with understanding speech in noisy backgrounds. The origins of such supra-threshold hearing deficits remain largely unclear. Previously we showed that the auditory brainstem response to running speech is modulated by selective attention, evidencing a subcortical mechanism that contributes to speech-in-noise comprehension. We observed, however, significant variation in the magnitude of the brainstem's attentional modulation between the different volunteers. Here we show that this variability relates to the ability of the subjects to understand speech in background noise. In particular, we assessed 43 young human volunteers with normal hearing thresholds for their speech-in-noise comprehension. We also recorded their auditory brainstem responses to running speech when selectively attending to one of two competing voices. To control for potential peripheral hearing deficits, and in particular for cochlear synaptopathy, we further assessed noise exposure, the temporal sensitivity threshold, the middle-ear muscle reflex, and the auditory-brainstem response to clicks in various levels of background noise. These tests did not show evidence for cochlear synaptopathy amongst the volunteers. Furthermore, we found that only the attentional modulation of the brainstem response to speech was significantly related to speech-in-noise comprehension. Our results therefore evidence an impact of topdown modulation of brainstem activity on the variability in speech-in-noise comprehension amongst the subjects.Understanding speech in noisy backgrounds such as other competing speakers is a challenging task at which humans excel 1,2 It requires the separation of different sound sources, selective attention to the target speaker, and the processing of degraded signals 3-5 Hearing impairment such as resulting from noise exposure often leads to an increase of hearing thresholds, a reduction in the information conveyed about a sound to the central auditory system, and thus to greater difficulty in understanding speech in noise 6-8 However, even listeners with normal hearing thresholds can have problems with understanding speech in noisy environments 9,10 .An extensive neural network of efferent fibers can feed information from the central auditory cortex back to the auditory brainstem and even to the cochlea 11,12 . Research on the role of these neural feedback loops for speech-in-noise listening has mostly focused on the medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR), in which stimulation of the medial olivocochlear fibers that synapse on the outer hair cells in the cochlea reduces cochlear amplification across a wide frequency band 13 . Computational modelling as well as animal studies have shown that such reduced broad-band amplification can improve the signal-to-noise ratio of a transient signal embedded in background noise [14][15][16][17] . However, it remains debated whether the reduction of cochlear amplification through the MOCR contributes to better speech-in-noise comprehe...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Individual differences in the attentional modulation of the human auditory brainstem response to speech inform on speech-in-noise deficits

Saiz-Alía

Forte

Reichenbach

2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Masker noise is delivered via two speakers each at 60 degrees relative to the listener, and the target speech is delivered at 0 degrees relative to the listener, with the level varied in 2-dB increments to determine threshold. The CRM test was also used by Prendergast, Millman et al (2017). No differences were detected on the CRM test, or a variety of other tests including the digit triplet test, during which three spoken digits with varied sound levels are presented sequentially in background noise at 40 or 80 dB SPL.…”

Section: Relationship Between Noise Exposure and Speech-in-noise Perfmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Statistically significant associations between exposure to noise and self-reported hearing difficulty were detected in a large epidemiological analysis, suggesting potential utility for qualitative metrics (Spankovich et al 2018). One survey that has been used to explore potential relationships between ABR Wave I amplitude and perceived difficulties in noise is the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), developed by Gatehouse and Noble (2004) and used by Yeend et al (2017) and Prendergast, Millman et al (2017). The SSQ qualitatively assesses perceived hearing difficulty in settings ranging from ideal listening conditions (one-on-one conversation in quiet listening conditions) to difficult listening conditions (group conversations in noisy environments).…”

Section: Relationship Between Noise Exposure and Speech-in-noise Perfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of noise exposure on auditory brainstem response and speech-in-noise tasks: a review of the literature

Prell

2018

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Short-term noise exposure that induces transient changes in thresholds has induced permanent cochlear synaptopathy in multiple species. Here, the literature was reviewed to gain translational insight into the relationships between noise exposure, ABR metrics, speech-in-noise performance and TTS in humans. Design: PubMed-based literature search, retrieval and review of full-text articles. Study Sample: Peerreviewed literature identified using PubMed search. Results: Permanent occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is frequently accompanied by abnormal ABR amplitude and latency. In the absence of NIHL, there are mixed results for relationships between noise exposure and ABR metrics. Interpretation of speech-in-noise deficits is difficult as both cochlear synaptopathy and outer hair cell (OHC) loss can drive deficits. Reductions in Wave I amplitude during TTS may reflect temporary OHC pathology rather than cochlear synaptopathy. Use of diverse protocols across studies reduces the ability to compare outcomes across studies. Conclusions: Longitudinal ABR and speech-in-noise data collected using consistent protocols are needed. Although speech-in-noise testing may not reflect cochlear synaptopathy, speech-in-noise testing should be completed as part of a comprehensive test battery to provide the objective measurement of patient difficulty.

show abstract

“…The role of cochlear synaptopathy (i.e., the loss of inner-hair-cell auditory-nerve fiber synapses due to noise exposure or aging; or hidden hearing loss) for supra-threshold hearing has been heavily contested in recent human studies [1, 2, 3, 4] even though animal studies show clear histological evidence for synaptopathy [5, 6, 7]. It is not clear whether the cause of the missing correlations between subcortical EEG measures, as a non-invasive tool to quantify synaptopathy, and the suprathreshold psychoacoustic tasks stems from methodological confounds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supra-threshold psychoacoustics and envelope-following response relations: normal-hearing, synaptopathy and cochlear gain loss

Verhulst

Ernst

Garrett

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

4The perceptual consequences of cochlear synaptopathy are presently not well understood as a direct 5 quantification of synaptopathy is not possible in humans. To study its role for human hearing, recent studies 6 have instead correlated changes in basic supra-threshold psychoacoustic tasks with individual differences in 7 subcortical EEG responses, as a proxy measure for synaptopathy. It is not clear whether the reported 8 missing relationships between the psychoacoustic quantities and the EEG are due to the adopted methods, 9 or to a minor role of synaptopathy for sound perception. We address this topic by studying the theoretical 10 relationship between subcortical EEG and psychoacoustic methods for different sensorineural hearing deficits. 11 1 Introduction 12The role of cochlear synaptopathy (i.e., the loss of inner-hair-cell auditory-nerve fiber synapses due to noise 13 exposure or aging; or hidden hearing loss) for supra-threshold hearing has been heavily contested in recent 14 human studies [1, 2, 3, 4] even though animal studies show clear histological evidence for synaptopathy [5, 6, 7]. 15It is not clear whether the cause of the missing correlations between subcortical EEG measures, as a non-16 invasive tool to quantify synaptopathy, and the suprathreshold psychoacoustic tasks stems from methodological 17 confounds. It might be that the adopted subcortical EEG methods (e.g. the envelope-following response, EFR 18 and auditory brainstem response, ABR) are not sensitive markers of synaptopathy in humans, or, that the EEG 19 methods are not targeting the same mechanisms involved in the psychoacoustic task, resulting in differential 20 effects of synaptopathy on both measures. To address these issues, we study the theoretical relationship between 21 the EFR and two common supra-threshold hearing tasks: tone-in-noise (TiN) and amplitude-modulation (AM) 22 detection for different degrees of sensorineural hearing loss. We employ a computational model of the human 23 auditory periphery that simulates neural responses to quantify psychoacoustic detection cues and subcortical 24 EEG metrics [8]. We simulate how different aspects of sensorineural hearing loss (synaptopathy, cochlear gain 25 loss and combinations) affect the theoretical relationship between the EFR and psychoacoustic metrics to assess 26 their sensitivity in quantifying synaptopathy in humans. 27Verhulst et al., p. 2 2 Methods 28Participants were informed according to the ethical guidelines at Oldenburg University and paid for participa-29 tion. TiN detection: 11 normal-hearing (NH; 24±4.4 yrs, 9 females) subjects with normal audiograms (Auritec 30 AT900) and 9 hearing-impaired (HI; 63 ± 6, 7 females) participants with a high-frequency sloping hearing loss 31 (≤40 dB HL up to 6 kHz, with a 20 to 25 dB HL loss at 4 kHz). AM detection: 12 NH listeners (26±4, 7 32 females) with flat audiograms and a max. 15 dB HL threshold at 4 kHz. 8 HI listeners (70±5, 5 females) with 33 sloping audiograms and a 4-kHz threshold between 20 and 40 dB HL. 34Psycho...

show abstract

Effects of noise exposure on young adults with normal audiograms II: Behavioral measures

Cited by 106 publications

References 54 publications

Individual differences in the attentional modulation of the human auditory brainstem response to speech inform on speech-in-noise deficits

Individual differences in the attentional modulation of the human auditory brainstem response to speech inform on speech-in-noise deficits

Effects of noise exposure on auditory brainstem response and speech-in-noise tasks: a review of the literature

Supra-threshold psychoacoustics and envelope-following response relations: normal-hearing, synaptopathy and cochlear gain loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About