Effect of Intensity Level and Speech Stimulus Type on the Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex

Abstract

Background:

Accurate vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) measurement requires control of extravestibular suppressive factors such as visual fixation. Although visual fixation is the dominant suppressor and has been extensively studied, the mechanisms underlying suppression from nonvisual factors of attention and auditory stimulation are less clear. It has been postulated that the nonvisual suppression of the VOR is the result of one of two mechanisms: (1) activation of auditory reception areas excites efferent pathways to the vestibular nuclei, thus inhibiting the VOR or (2) cortical modulation of the VOR results from directed attention, which implies a nonmodality-specific process.

Purpose:

The purpose of this research was to determine if the VOR is affected by the intensity level and/or type of speech stimulus.

Research Design:

A repeated measures design was used. The experiment was single-blinded.

Study Sample:

Participants included 17 adults (14 females, three males) between the ages of 18–34 years who reported normal oculomotor, vestibular, neurological, and musculoskeletal function.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Each participant underwent slow harmonic acceleration testing in a rotational chair. VOR gain was assessed at 0.02, 0.08, and 0.32 Hz in quiet (baseline). VOR gain was also assessed at each frequency while a forward running speech stimulus (attentional) or a backward running speech stimulus (nonattentional) was presented binaurally via insert earphones at 42, 62, and 82 dBA. The order of the conditions was randomized across participants. VOR difference gain was calculated as VOR gain in the auditory condition minus baseline VOR gain. To evaluate auditory efferent function, the medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR) was assayed using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (right ear) measured in the presence and absence of broadband noise (left ear). Contralateral acoustic reflex thresholds were also assessed using a broadband noise elicitor. A three-way repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the effect of frequency, intensity level, and speech type on VOR difference gain. Correlations were conducted to determine if difference gain was related to the strength of the MOCR and/or to the acoustic reflex threshold.

Results:

The analysis of variance indicated that VOR difference gain was not significantly affected by the intensity level or the type of speech stimulus. Correlations indicated VOR difference gain was not significantly related to the strength of the MOCR or the acoustic reflex threshold.

Conclusions:

The results were in contrast to previous research examining the effect of auditory stimulation on VOR gain as auditory stimulation did not produce VOR suppression or enhancement for most of the participants. Methodological differences between the studies may explain the discrepant results. The removal of an acoustic target from space to attend to may have prevented suppression or enhancement of the VOR. Findings support the hypothesis that VOR gain may be affected by cortical modulation through directed attention rather than due to activation of efferent pathways to the vestibular nuclei.

Key Words

assessment - MOCR - medial olivocochlear reflex - tasking - TEOAE - transient evoked otoacoustic emissions - vestibular - vestibulo-ocular reflex - VNG - VOR

This research was supported by a student investigator award from the American Academy of Audiology Foundation.

Poster presentation at the 29th Annual American Academy of Audiology National Convention (Indianapolis, IN, April 7, 2017).

• REFERENCES

• Backus BC, Guinan JJ. 2007; Measurement of the distribution of medial olivocochlear acoustic reflex strengths across normal-hearing individuals via otoacoustic emissions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8 (04) 484-496
• Baloh RW, Honrubia V, Kerber KA. 2011. Baloh and Honrubia’s Clinical Neurophysiology of the Vestibular System. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;
• Barr CC, Schultheis LW, Robinson DA. 1976; Voluntary, non-visual control of the human vestibulo-ocular reflex. Acta Otolaryngol 81: 365-375
• Bronstein AM, Patel M, Arshad Q. 2015; A brief review of the clinical anatomy of the vestibular-ocular connections—how much do we know?. Eye 29: 163-170
• Brown EC, Muzik O, Rothermel R, Matsuzaki N, Juhasz C, Shah AK, Atkinson MD, Fuerst D, Mittal S, Sood S, Diwadkar VA, Asano E. 2012; Evaluating reverse speech as a control task with language-related gamma activity on electrocorticography. Neuroimage 60 (04) 2335-2345
• Goebel JA, Isipradit P, Hanson JM. 2000; Manual rotational testing of the vestibulo- ocular reflex. Laryngoscope 110: 517-535
• Goodman S, Mertes I, Lewis J, Weissbeck D. 2013; Medial olivocochlear-induced transient-evoked otoacoustic emission amplitude shifts in individual subjects. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 14: 829-842
• Goumans J, Houban MM, Dits J, Van Der Steen J. 2010; Peaks and troughs of three- dimensional vestibulo-ocular reflex in humans. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 11: 383-393
• Guinan Jr JJ. 2006; Olivocochlear efferents: anatomy, physiology, function, and the measurement of efferent effects in humans. Ear Hear 27: 589-607
• Halmagyi GM, Gresty MA. 1979; Clinical signs of visual-vestibular interaction. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 42: 934-939
• Hawley ML, Litovsky RY, Culling JG. 2004; The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: effect of location and type of interferer. J Acoust Soc Am 115: 833-843
• Hill JC, Prasher DK, Luxon LM. 1997; Evidence efferent effects on auditory afferent activity and their functional relevance. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 22: 394-402
• Jacobson GP, Piker EG, Do C, McCaslin DL, Hood L. 2012; Suppression of the vestibulo-ocular reflex using visual and nonvisual stimuli. Am J Audiol 21: 226-231
• Marshall L, Lapsley Miller JA, Guinan JJ, Shera CA, Reed CM, Perez ZD, Delhorne LA, Boege P. 2014; Otoacoustic-emission-based medial-olivocochlear reflex assays for humans. J Acoust Soc Am 136: 2697-2713
• Mishra S, Dinger Z. 2016; Influence of medial olivocochlear efferents on the sharpness of cochlear tuning estimates in children. J Acoust Soc Am 14 (02) 1060
• Moller C, White V, Odkvist LM. 1990; Plasticity of compensatory eye movements in rotatory tests: II. The effect of voluntary, visual, imaginary, auditory, and proprioceptive mechanisms. Acta Otolaryngol 109: 168-178
• In: Purves D, Augustine G, Fitzpatrick D, Katz L, LaMantia A, McNamara J, Williams M. 2001. Central vestibular pathways: eye, head, and body reflexes. In Neuroscience 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10987/ . Accessed November 17, 2016.
• Rothauser EH, Chapman WD, Guttman N, Nordby KS, Silbigert HR, Urbanek GE, Weinstock M. 1969; IEEE recommended practice for speech quality measurements. IEEE Trans Audio Electroacoust 17: 225-246
• Warren E, Liberman M. 1989; Effects of contralateral sound on auditory-nerve responses. I. Contributiuons of cochlear efferents. Hear Res 37: 89-104