Download PDF
Semin Hear 2017; 38(01): 071-093
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1598066
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Auditory Brainstem and Middle Latency Responses Measured Pre- and Posttreatment for Hyperacusic Hearing-Impaired Persons Successfully Treated to Improve Sound Tolerance and to Expand the Dynamic Range for Loudness: Case Evidence

Craig Formby
1   Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
,
Peggy Korczak
2   Department of Audiology, Speech Language Pathology, and Deaf Studies, Towson University, Towson, Maryland
,
LaGuinn P. Sherlock
3   Army Hearing Division, United State Army Public Health Center (Provisional), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland
4   National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Monica L. Hawley
5   Department of Otolaryngology–HNS, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Susan Gold
6   University of Maryland Tinnitus and Hyperacusis Center (retired), Columbia, Maryland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
09 March 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

In this report of three cases, we consider electrophysiologic measures from three hyperacusic hearing-impaired individuals who, prior to treatment to expand their dynamic ranges for loudness, were problematic hearing aid candidates because of their diminished sound tolerance and reduced dynamic ranges. Two of these individuals were treated with structured counseling combined with low-level broadband sound therapy from bilateral sound generators and the third case received structured counseling in combination with a short-acting placebo sound therapy. Each individual was highly responsive to his or her assigned treatment as revealed by expansion of the dynamic range by at least 20 dB at one or more frequencies posttreatment. Of specific interest in this report are their latency and amplitude measures taken from tone burst-evoked auditory brainstem response (ABR) and cortically derived middle latency response (MLR) recordings, measured as a function of increasing loudness at 500 and 2,000 Hz pre- and posttreatment. The resulting ABR and MLR latency and amplitude measures for each case are considered here in terms of pre- and posttreatment predictions. The respective pre- and posttreatment predictions anticipated larger pretreatment response amplitudes and shorter pretreatment response latencies relative to typical normal control values and smaller normative-like posttreatment response amplitudes and longer posttreatment response latencies relative to the corresponding pretreatment values for each individual. From these results and predictions, we conjecture about the neural origins of the hyperacusis conditions (i.e., brainstem versus cortical) and the neuronal sites responsive to treatment. The only consistent finding in support of the pre- and posttreatment predictions and, thus, the strongest index of hyperacusis and positive treatment-related effects was measured for MLR latency responses for wave Pa at 2,000 Hz. Other response indices, including ABR wave V latency and wave V-V′ amplitude and MLR wave Na-Pa amplitude for 500 and 2,000 Hz, appear either ambiguous across and/or within these individuals. Notwithstanding significant challenges for interpreting these findings, including associated confounding effects of their sensorineural hearing losses and differences in the presentation levels of the toneburst stimuli used to collect these measures for each individual, our limited analyses of three cases suggest measures of MLR wave Pa latency at 2,000 Hz (reflecting cortical contributions) may be a promising objective indicator of hyperacusis and dynamic range expansion treatment effects.

Keywords

Hyperacusis - toneburst ABR and MLR amplitude and latency measures - categorical loudness judgments - treatment to induce dynamic range expansion
 

  • References

  • 1 Formby C, Hawley ML, Sherlock LP , et al. A sound therapy-based intervention to expand the auditory dynamic range for loudness among persons with sensorineural hearing losses: a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Semin Hear 2015; 36 (2) 77-109
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Fournier P, Schönwiesner M, Hébert S. Loudness modulation after transient and permanent hearing loss: implications for tinnitus and hyperacusis. Neuroscience 2014; 283: 64-77
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Serpanos YC, O'Malley H, Gravel JS. The relationship between loudness intensity functions and the click-ABR wave V latency. Ear Hear 1997; 18 (5) 409-419
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Silva I, Epstein M. Estimating loudness growth from tone-burst evoked responses. J Acoust Soc Am 2010; 127 (6) 3629-3642
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Howe SW, Decker TN. Monaural and binaural auditory brainstem responses in relation to the psychophysical loudness growth function. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76 (3) 787-793
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Korczak PA, Sherlock LP, Hawley M, Formby C. Relations among auditory brainstem response and middle latency response measures, categorical loudness judgments, and their associated physical intensities. Semin Hear 2017; 38 (1) 92-112
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Philibert B, Collet L, Vesson JF, Veuillet E. The auditory acclimatization effect in sensorineural hearing-impaired listeners: evidence for functional plasticity. Hear Res 2005; 205 (01/02) 131-142
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Jastrboff PJ, Hazell J. Tinnitus Retraining Therapy. Implementing the Neurophysiological Model. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Formby C, Keaser ML. Secondary treatment benefits achieved by hearing-impaired tinnitus patients using aided environmental sound therapy for TRT: comparisons with matched groups of tinnitus patients using noise generators for sound therapy. Semin Hear 2007; 28 (4) 227-260
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Bratt GW, Rosenfeld MAL, Peek BF, Kang J, Williams DW, Larson V. Coupler and real-ear measurement of hearing aid gain and output in the NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (4) 308-315
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Mueller HG, Bentler RA. Fitting hearing aids using clinical measures of loudness discomfort levels: an evidence-based review of effectiveness. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (7) 461-472
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Hamilton AM, Munro KJ. Uncomfortable loudness levels in experienced unilateral and bilateral hearing aid users: evidence of adaptive plasticity following asymmetrical sensory input?. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (9) 667-671
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Gold SL, Formby C. Structured counseling for dynamic range expansion. Semin Hear 2017; 38 (1) 113-127
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Formby C, Sherlock LP, Hawley ML, Gold SL. A sound therapy-based intervention to expand the auditory dynamic range for loudness among persons with sensorineural hearing losses: case evidence showcasing treatment efficacy. Semin Hear 2017; 38 (1) 128-148
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Olsen SO, Rasmussen AN, Nielsen LH, Borgkvist BV. Loudness perception is influenced by long-term hearing aid use. Audiology 1999; 38 (4) 202-205
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Philibert B, Collet L, Vesson JF, Veuillet E. Intensity-related performances are modified by long-term hearing aid use: a functional plasticity?. Hear Res 2002; 165 (1-2): 142-151
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Formby C, Gold SL, Keaser ML, Block KL, Hawley ML. Secondary benefits from tinnitus Retraining Therapy: clinically significant increases in loudness discomfort level and expansion of the auditory dynamic range. Semin Hear 2007; 28: 227-260
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Hébert S, Fournier P, Noreña A. The auditory sensitivity is increased in tinnitus ears. J Neurosci 2013; 33 (6) 2356-2364
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Schecklmann M, Landgrebe M, Langguth B ; TRI Database Study Group. Phenotypic characteristics of hyperacusis in tinnitus. PLoS One 2014; 9 (1) e86944
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Sheldrake J, Diehl PU, Schaette R. Audiometric characteristics of hyperacusis patients. Front Neurol 2015; 6: 105
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Dauman R, Bouscau-Faure F. Assessment and amelioration of hyperacusis in tinnitus patients. Acta Otolaryngol 2005; 125 (5) 503-509
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Schaette R, McAlpine D. Tinnitus with a normal audiogram: physiological evidence for hidden hearing loss and computational model. J Neurosci 2011; 31 (38) 13452-13457
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Gu JW, Herrmann BS, Levine RA, Melcher JR. Brainstem auditory evoked potentials suggest a role for the ventral cochlear nucleus in tinnitus. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2012; 13 (6) 819-833
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Formby C, Gold SL. Modification of loudness discomfort levels: evidence for adaptive chronic gain and its clinical relevance. Semin Hear 2002; 23: 21-34
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Robinson BL, McAlpine D. Gain control mechanisms in the auditory pathway. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2009; 19 (4) 402-407
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Auerbach BD, Rodrigues PV, Salvi RJ. Central gain control in tinnitus and hyperacusis. Front Neurol 2014; 5: 206
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Brotherton H, Plack CJ, Maslin M, Schaette R, Munro KJ. Pump up the volume: could excessive neural gain explain tinnitus and hyperacusis?. Audiol Neurootol 2015; 20 (4) 273-282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Diehl PU, Schaette R. Abnormal auditory gain in hyperacusis: investigation with a computational model. Front Neurol 2015; 6: 157
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Taylor IM, Gray GA. The contour test of loudness perception. Ear Hear 1997; 18 (5) 388-400
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Møller AR. Hearing: Its Physiology and Pathophysiology. New York, NY: Academic Press; 2000
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Møller AR. Neural generators for auditory brainstem evoked potentials. In: Burkhard RF, Don M, Eggermont JJ, , eds. Auditory Evoked Potentials: Basic Principles and Clinical Application. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007: 336-354
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Picton TW. Human Auditory Evoked Potentials. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing Inc.; 2011
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 33 Lee YS, Lueders H, Dinner DS, Lesser RP, Hahn J, Klem G. Recording of auditory evoked potentials in man using chronic subdural electrodes. Brain 1984; 107 (Pt 1) 115-131
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Cacace AT, Satya-Murti S, Wolpaw JR. Human middle-latency auditory evoked potentials: vertex and temporal components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990; 77 (1) 6-18
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Pratt H. Middle-latency responses. In: Burkhard RF, Don M, Eggermont JJ, , eds. Auditory Evoked Potentials: Basic Principles and Clinical Application. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007: 463-481
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 36 Hoppe U, Rosanowski F, Iro H, Eysholdt U. Loudness perception and late auditory evoked potentials in adult cochlear implant users. Scand Audiol 2001; 30 (2) 119-125
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Röhl M, Uppenkamp S. Neural coding of sound intensity and loudness in the human auditory system. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2012; 13 (3) 369-379
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Hawley ML, Sherlock LP, Formby C. Intra- and intersubject variability in audiometric measures and loudness judgments in older listeners with normal hearing. Semin Hear 2017; 38 (1) 3-26
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Oates P, Stapells DR. Auditory brainstem response estimates of the pure-tone audiogram: current status. Semin Hear 1998; 19: 61-85
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Munro KJ, Turtle C, Schaette R. Plasticity and modified loudness following short-term unilateral deprivation: evidence of multiple gain mechanisms within the auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 135 (1) 315-322
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Brotherton H. Using Physiological and Perceptual Measures to Characterize Neural Gain in the Auditory System of Normal Hearing Adults [Ph.D. dissertation]. Manchester, England: University of Manchester; 2016
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 42 Nousak JMK. Loudness and Auditory Brainstem and Middle Latency Responses [Ph.D. dissertation]. New York, NY: Graduate Center City University of New York; 2001
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 43 Korczak P, Smart J, Delgado R, Strobel TM, Bradford C. Auditory steady-state responses. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (3) 146-170
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Picton TW, John MS, Dimitrijevic A, Purcell D. Human auditory steady-state responses. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (4) 177-219
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Ménard M, Gallégo S, Berger-Vachon C, Collet L, Thai-Van H. Relationship between loudness growth function and auditory steady-state response in normal-hearing subjects. Hear Res 2008; 235 (01/02) 105-113
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Zenker Castro F, Barajas de Prat JJ, Larumbe Zabala E. Loudness and auditory steady-state responses in normal-hearing subjects. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (5) 269-275
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar