Predicting neural deficits in sensorineural hearing loss from word recognition scores

Grant, Kelsie J; Parthasarathy, Aravindakshan; Vasilkov, Viacheslav; Caswell-Midwinter, Benjamin; Freitas, Maria E; Gruttola, Victor De; Polley, Daniel B.; Liberman, M. Charles; Maison, Stéphane F.

doi:10.1038/s41598-022-13023-5

Cited by 22 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Noise-induced temporary threshold shift (TTS) in the absence of permanent threshold shift (PTS) can be accompanied by permanent damage to the synaptic connections between the cochlear inner hair cells (IHCs) and auditory nerve (AN) dendrites (cochlear synaptopathy) (see Kujawa and Liberman, 2009 ). A variety of data suggest that cochlear synaptopathy — inferred from evoked potential measurements — is correlated with hearing-in-noise difficulties in patients/participants who exhibit clinically normal-hearing sensitivity (thresholds 0.25–8 kHz ≤ 25 dB HL) ( Grant et al, 2020 , 2022 ; Mepani et al, 2021 ; Wu et al, 2021 ). Hazardous noise exposure is better known for compromising outer hair cell (OHC) integrity, and is associated with decreased distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) amplitude ( Poling et al, 2022 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of hidden hearing loss in normal-hearing firearm users

Grinn

Prell²

2022

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some noise exposures resulting in temporary threshold shift (TTS) result in cochlear synaptopathy. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate a human population that might be at risk for noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy (i.e., “hidden hearing loss”). Participants were firearm users who were (1) at-risk for prior audiometric noise-induced threshold shifts, given their history of firearm use, (2) likely to have experienced complete threshold recovery if any prior TTS had occurred, based on this study’s normal-hearing inclusion criteria, and (3) not at-risk for significant age-related synaptopathic loss, based on this study’s young-adult inclusion criteria. 70 participants (age 18–25 yr) were enrolled, including 33 firearm users experimental (EXP), and 37 non-firearm users control (CNTRL). All participants were required to exhibit audiometric thresholds ≤20 dB HL bilaterally, from 0.25 to 8 kHz. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that EXP participants would exhibit a reduced cochlear nerve response compared to CNTRL participants, despite normal-hearing sensitivity in both groups. No statistically significant group differences in auditory performance were detected between the CNTRL and EXP participants on standard audiom to etry, extended high-frequency audiometry, Words-in-Noise performance, distortion product otoacoustic emission, middle ear muscle reflex, or auditory brainstem response. Importantly, 91% of EXP participants reported that they wore hearing protection either “all the time” or “almost all the time” while using firearms. The data suggest that consistent use of hearing protection during firearm use can effectively protect cochlear and neural measures of auditory function, including suprathreshold responses. The current results do not exclude the possibility that neural pathology may be evident in firearm users with less consistent hearing protection use. However, firearm users with less consistent hearing protection use are also more likely to exhibit threshold elevation, among other cochlear deficits, thereby confounding the isolation of any potentially selective neural deficits. Taken together, it seems most likely that firearm users who consistently and correctly use hearing protection will exhibit preserved measures of cochlear and neural function, while firearm users who inconsistently and incorrectly use hearing protection are most likely to exhibit cochlear injury, rather than evidence of selective neural injury in the absence of cochlear injury.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of hidden hearing loss in normal-hearing firearm users

Grinn

Prell²

2022

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, word recognition scores (WRSs) in the best and worse hearing ear were also collected. WRS was measured using recorded W-22 lists in quiet with consistent logic for presentation level (21). Lastly, the type of hearing loss (normal, sensorineural, mixed, or conductive) in the best and worse hearing ear was collected.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Predictive Model for Individualized Hearing Aid Benefit

Suresh

Franck²,

Arenberg

et al. 2022

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To develop a model to predict individualized hearing aid benefit. To provide interpretations of model predictions on global and individual levels. Methods: We compiled a data set of patients with hearing loss who trialed hearing aids and completed the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) questionnaire, a validated patient-reported outcome measure of hearing aid benefit. Features included demographic, medical, and audiological measures. The outcome was the COSI score for change in listening ability with hearing aids, scaled from 1 to 5. Model development was performed using fivefold cross-validation repeated three times with hyperparameter tuning. Model performance was assessed using the root mean squared error (RMSE) of the COSI scores. Model interpretation was performed using Shapley Additive Explanations. Results: The data set comprised 1,286 patients across 3,523 listening situations. The best performing model was random forest with an RMSE of 0.80, found to be significantly better than the next best model (eXtreme gradient boosting with RMSE of 0.85, p < 0.01). The most important features in predicting hearing aid benefit were shorter duration of hearing aid use, higher pure-tone average in the better hearing ear, and younger age. Conclusion:We have developed a predictive model for hearing aid benefit that can also provide individualized explanations of model predictions. Predictive modeling could be a useful tool in assessing a patient's candidacy and predicted benefit from hearing aids.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, animal studies have shown that the audiogram is not a valid metric for determining the extent of damage within the cochlea. Specifically, damage to the outer and/or inner hair cells must be used cautiously to diagnose pathology as the loss of neural connections within the ear (i.e., synaptopathy) can reach 80% without significantly impacting audiometric thresholds 28–31 …”

Section: Diagnosis First Treatment Secondmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Word Recognition Scores (WRSs): Traditional WRSs are not a rigorous metric of hearing and/or listening capabilities. Indeed, 60% or more neural damage must be present before its contribution is witnessed via traditional WRSs in quiet 28 …”

Section: Diagnosis First Treatment Secondmentioning

confidence: 99%