Download PDF
Semin Hear 2017; 38(01): 094-114
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1598067
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Relations among Auditory Brainstem and Middle Latency Response Measures, Categorical Loudness Judgments, and Their Associated Physical Intensities

Peggy A. Korczak
1   Department of Audiology, Speech Language Pathology and Deaf Studies, Towson University, Towson, Maryland
,
LaGuinn P. Sherlock
2   Army Hearing Division, United States Public Health Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland
3   National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Monica L. Hawley
4   Department of Otolaryngology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Craig Formby
5   Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
09 March 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study characterizes changes in response properties of toneburst-evoked auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) and/or middle latency responses (MLRs) as a function of perceived loudness and physical intensity of these stimuli and delineates the range of levels corresponding to categorical loudness judgments for these stimuli. ABRs/MLRs were recorded simultaneously to 500- and 2,000-Hz tonebursts in 10 normal-hearing adults at levels corresponding to each listener's loudness judgments for four categories on Contour Test of Loudness. Group mean ABR wave V and MLR wave Pa latency values increased significantly as loudness judgments decreased. Group mean amplitude values for ABR wave V-V′ and MLR wave Na-Pa increased as the listeners' categorical judgments increased. Listeners assigned a broad range (30 to 40 dB) of stimulus intensities when judging loudness of these stimuli within a specific loudness category. This was true for all four loudness categories and both frequencies. Thus, it appears that tone-evoked ABR/MLR response measures reflect, in part, the listener's perception of loudness. Response latencies are a more sensitive indicator of listener's loudness percept than corresponding response amplitudes. An appreciable range of signal levels was judged to be categorically equivalent across listeners. Thus, limiting how loudness judgments can be applied to prescriptive hearing aid fittings in individuals who cannot provide accurate loudness judgments.

Keywords

Auditory evoked potentials - and categorical loudness judgments
 

  • References

  • 1 Mueller GH, Hall JW. Hearing aids: fitting and verification. In: Mueller GH, Hall JW, , eds. Audiologist's Desk Reference, Volume II. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group; 1998: 165-182
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Dillon H, Chew R, Deans M. Loudness discomfort level measurements and their implications for the design and fitting of hearing aids. Aust J Audiol 1984; 6: 73-79
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 McCandless GA, Miller DL. Loudness discomfort and hearing aids. National Hearing Aid Journal 1972; 1: 28-32
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Stephens SDG, Blegvad B, Krogh HJ. The value of some suprathreshold auditory measures. Scand Audiol 1977; 6 (4) 213-221
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 McLeod HL, Greenberg HJ. Relationship between loudness discomfort level and acoustic reflex threshold for normal and sensorineural hearing-impaired individuals. J Speech Hear Res 1979; 22 (4) 873-883
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Margolis RH, Popelka GR. Loudness and the acoustic reflex. J Acoust Soc Am 1975; 58 (6) 1330-1332
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Forquer BD. The stability of and the relation between the acoustic reflex and uncomfortable loudness levels. J Am Aud Soc 1979; 5 (2) 55-59
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Morgan DE, Dirks DD, Bower D, Kamm CA. Loudness discomfort level and acoustic reflex threshold for speech stimuli. J Speech Hear Res 1979; 22 (4) 849-861
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Ritter R, Johnson RM, Northern JL. The controversial relationship between loudness discomfort levels and acoustic reflex thresholds. J Am Audiol Soc 1979; 4 (4) 123-131
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Greenfield DG, Wiley TL, Block MG. Acoustic-reflex dynamics and the loudness-discomfort level. J Speech Hear Disord 1985; 50 (1) 14-20
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Munro KJ, Blount J. Adaptive plasticity in brainstem of adult listeners following earplug-induced deprivation. J Acoust Soc Am 2009; 126 (2) 568-571
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Madell JR, Goldstein R. Relation between loudness and the amplitude of the early components of the averaged electroencephalic response. J Speech Hear Res 1972; 15 (1) 134-141
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Pratt H, Sohmer H. Correlations between psychophysical magnitude estimates and simultaneously obtained auditory nerve, brain stem and cortical responses to click stimuli in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1977; 43 (6) 802-812
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Wilson KG, Stelmack RM. Power functions of loudness magnitude estimations and auditory brainstem evoked responses. Percept Psychophys 1982; 31 (6) 561-565
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Kiessling J. Hearing aid selection by brainstem audiometry. Scand Audiol 1982; 11 (4) 269-275
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 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
  • 17 Darling RM, Price LL. Loudness and auditory brain stem evoked response. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (4) 289-295
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Davidson SA, Wall LG, Goodman CM. Preliminary studies on the use of an ABR amplitude projection procedure for hearing aid selection. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (5) 332-339
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Serpanos YC. ABR and DPOAE indices of normal loudness in children and adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (8) 555-565
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Nousak JMK. Loudness and the auditory brainstem and middle latency responses (Ph.D. dissertation). New York, NY: University of New York; 2001
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 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
  • 22 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
  • 23 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
  • 24 Beattie RC, Svihovec DA, Carmen RE, Kunkel HA. Loudness discomfort level for speech: comparison of two instructional sets for saturation sound pressure level selection. Ear Hear 1980; 1 (4) 197-205
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Skinner MW. Determining an individual's auditory area. In: Remediation of Communication Disorders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1988: 118-148
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Sammeth CA, Birman M, Hecox KE. Variability of most comfortable and uncomfortable loudness levels to speech stimuli in the hearing impaired. Ear Hear 1989; 10 (2) 94-100
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Florentine M, Buus S, Poulsen T. Temporal integration of loudness as a function of level. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 99 (3) 1633-1644
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Jenstad LM, Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC. Effects of test procedure on individual loudness functions. Ear Hear 1997; 18 (5) 401-408
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sherlock LP, Formby C. Estimates of loudness, loudness discomfort, and the auditory dynamic range: normative estimates, comparison of procedures, and test-retest reliability. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (2) 85-100
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Formby C, Hawley M, Sherlock L , 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) 77-110
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Hawley M, LaGuinn S, Formby C. Intra- and intersubject variability in audiometric measures and loudness judgments in older listeners with normal hearing. Semin Hear 2017; 38 (1) 3-25
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Stapells DR, Picton TW. Technical aspects of brainstem evoked potential audiometry using tones. Ear Hear 1981; 2 (1) 20-29
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Nousak JM, Stapells DR. Frequency specificity of the auditory brain stem response to bone-conducted tones in infants and adults. Ear Hear 1992; 13 (2) 87-95
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Oates P, Stapells DR. Frequency specificity of the human auditory brainstem and middle latency responses to brief tones. II. Derived response analyses. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102 (6) 3609-3619
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1991
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 36 Hall JW. eHandbook of Auditory Evoked Responses. Amazon Digital Services; 2015
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 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
  • 38 Picton TW. Human Auditory Evoked Potentials. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing Inc.; 2011
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 39 Kamm C, Dirks DD, Mickey MR. Effect of sensorineural hearing loss on loudness discomfort level and most comfortable loudness judgments. J Speech Hear Res 1978; 21 (4) 668-681
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Valente M, Potts LG, Valente M. Differences and intersubject variability of loudness discomfort levels measured in sound pressure level and hearing level for TDH-50P and ER-3A earphones. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8 (1) 59-67
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Valente DL, Joshi SN, Jesteadt W. Temporal integration of loudness measured using categorical loudness scaling and matching procedures. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130 (1) EL32-EL37
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Oates P, Stapells DR. Auditory brainstem response estimates of the pure tone audiogram: Current status. Semin Hear 1998; 19 (1) 61-85
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Beattie RC, Boyd RL. Early/middle evoked potentials to tonebursts in quiet, white noise and notched noise. Audiology 1985; 24 (6) 406-419
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Hoppe U, Rosanowski F, Iro H, Eysholdt U. Loudness perception and late auditory evoked potentials in adult cochlear implant users. Scand Audiol 2001; 30: 119-125
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Menard M, Gallego S, Berger-Vacon C, Collet L, Thai-Van H. Relationship between loudness growth function and auditory steady-state response in normal-hearing subjects. Hearing Research 2008; 235 (1-2): 105-113
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Suzuki T, Hirai Y, Horiuchi K. Auditory brainstem responses to pure tone stimuli. Scand Audiol 1977; 6: 51-56
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar