PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2024; 35(01/02): 013-023
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1790277
Research Article

Stimulus Rate Effect on Electrocochleogram Components in Adults with High Risk for Noise Exposure

Abdullah M. Jamos 
1   Department of Hearing and Speech, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
2   Dpartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
Riley Rickman
2   Dpartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
› Institutsangaben Funding This research was supported by the Graduate College at Missouri State University.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Hidden hearing loss (HHL) is a newly described condition that has been associated with hearing thresholds within normal limits and poorer speech-in-noise (SIN) performance. Furthermore, HHL has been associated with an elevated or absent middle ear muscle reflex (MEMR). One of the leading factors causing HHL is exposure to noise, specifically in patients who experience temporary threshold shift. This study investigated the SIN performance and MEMR in individuals at risk for noise exposure. Additionally, this study investigated the auditory nerve response measured to different stimulation rates in order to evaluate the auditory nerve adaptation and potentially identify neural loss in individuals at risk for noise exposure.

Research Design Twenty-one young-adult participants (11 low-risk and 10 high-risk) were recruited to participate in the study. Participants were divided into a low-risk and high-risk group based on their noise exposure history and if they have experienced any signs of temporary threshold shift following noise exposure. SIN testing, distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), MEMR, hearing thresholds, and electrocochleography (ECochG) were measured. Experimental protocol included measuring MEMR, word recognition scores in quiet and in noise (0 dB signal-to-noise ratio), and ECochG recordings at three rates (9.1, 37.1, and 71.1 clicks/seconds).

Data Analysis Descriptive statistics are provided for the different variables. Contingency tables were used to investigate the frequency of measuring normal MEMR between both groups. We also investigated the audiometric threshold, DPOAEs amplitude, and SIN results between groups using independent samples t-tests. Lastly, we investigated the effect of stimulation rate on the summating potential (SP) and action potential (AP) between groups using repeated measures analysis of variance with mixed effects.

Results No significant differences in hearing thresholds or DPOAEs amplitude at any tested frequency between both groups. Significantly larger number of participants in the high-risk group have abnormal MEMR compared with the low-risk group. Significantly poorer performance on SIN, smaller AP amplitude, and greater SP/AP amplitude ratio in the high-risk group. Furthermore, the AP amplitude adapted differently for the high-risk group with increasing stimulation rate compared with the low-risk group.

Conclusions The results of this study show that HHL is associated with poorer SIN performance and abnormal MEMR. Additionally, the significant reduction in AP amplitude and the degree of AP amplitude adaptation with change in stimulus rate might indicate loss of neural output in individuals with a history of noise exposure.

Keywords

cochlear synaptopathy - speech in noise - electrocochleography - noise-induced hearing loss - summating potential - action potential

Previous Presentation

Data were presented at the Midwest Auditory Research Conference in July 2019: poster presentation.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 07. August 2022

Angenommen: 16. Oktober 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
28. November 2024

© 2024. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • ReferenceS

  • 1 Green DR, Masterson EA, Themann CL. Prevalence of hearing protection device non-use among noise-exposed US workers in 2007 and 2014. Am J Ind Med 2021; 64 (12) 1002-1017
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bernstein LR, Trahiotis C. Behavioral manifestations of audiometrically-defined “slight” or “hidden” hearing loss revealed by measures of binaural detection. J Acoust Soc Am 2016; 140 (05) 3540-3548
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bramhall NF, Konrad-Martin D, McMillan GP, Griest SE. Auditory brainstem response altered in humans with noise exposure despite normal outer hair cell function. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (01) e1-e12
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Furman AC, Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Noise-induced cochlear neuropathy is selective for fibers with low spontaneous rates. J Neurophysiol 2013; 110 (03) 577-586
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 2009; 29 (45) 14077-14085
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Mehraei G, Hickox AE, Bharadwaj HM. et al. Auditory brainstem response latency in noise as a marker of cochlear synaptopathy. J Neurosci 2016; 36 (13) 3755-3764
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Liberman MC, Kujawa SG. Cochlear synaptopathy in acquired sensorineural hearing loss: manifestations and mechanisms. Hear Res 2017; 349: 138-147
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Liberman MC. Auditory-nerve response from cats raised in a low-noise chamber. J Acoust Soc Am 1978; 63 (02) 442-455
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Kim JS, Nam EC, Park SI. Electrocochleography is more sensitive than distortion-product otoacoustic emission test for detecting noise-induced temporary threshold shift. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 133 (04) 619-624
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Lobarinas E, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG. Evidence of “hidden hearing loss” following noise exposures that produce robust TTS and ABR wave-I amplitude reductions. Hear Res 2017; 349: 155-163
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Viana LM, O'Malley JT, Burgess BJ. et al. Cochlear neuropathy in human presbycusis: confocal analysis of hidden hearing loss in post-mortem tissue. Hear Res 2015; 327: 78-88
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Salvi R, Sun W, Ding D. et al. Inner hair cell loss disrupts hearing and cochlear function leading to sensory deprivation and enhanced central auditory gain. Front Neurosci 2017; 10: 621
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Ahmadpour T, Toufan R, Pourbakht A, Kamali M. Evaluation of cochlear synaptopathy in tinnitus patients with normal hearing using auditory brainstem response and electrocochleography tests. Aud Vestib Res. 2022; 31 (01) 4-10
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Mepani AM, Kirk SA, Hancock KE. et al. Middle ear muscle reflex and word recognition in “normal-hearing” adults: evidence for cochlear synaptopathy?. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (01) 25-38
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Valero MD, Hancock KE, Liberman MC. The middle ear muscle reflex in the diagnosis of cochlear neuropathy. Hear Res 2016; 332: 29-38
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Liberman MC, Epstein MJ, Cleveland SS, Wang H, Maison SF. Toward a differential diagnosis of hidden hearing loss in humans. PLoS One 2016; 11 (09) e0162726
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Shehorn J, Strelcyk O, Zahorik P. Associations between speech recognition at high levels, the middle ear muscle reflex and noise exposure in individuals with normal audiograms. Hear Res 2020; 392: 107982
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Samelli AG, Rocha CH, Kamita MK, Lopes MEP, Andrade CQ, Matas CG. Evaluation of subtle auditory impairments with multiple audiological assessments in normal hearing workers exposed to occupational noise. Brain Sci 2023; 13 (06) 968
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Houghton JM, Greville KA, Keith WJ. Acoustic reflex amplitude and noise-induced hearing loss. Audiology 1988; 27 (01) 42-48
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Wojtczak M, Beim JA, Oxenham AJ. Weak middle-ear-muscle reflex in humans with noise-induced tinnitus and normal hearing may reflect cochlear synaptopathy. eNeuro 2017;4(06):ENEURO.0363-17.2017
  • 22 Guest H, Munro KJ, Plack CJ. Acoustic middle-ear-muscle-reflex thresholds in humans with normal audiograms: no relations to tinnitus, speech perception in noise, or noise exposure. Neuroscience 2019; 407: 75-82
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Bramhall N, Ong B, Ko J, Parker M. Speech perception ability in noise is correlated with auditory brainstem response wave I amplitude. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (05) 509-517
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Guest H, Munro KJ, Prendergast G, Millman RE, Plack CJ. Impaired speech perception in noise with a normal audiogram: no evidence for cochlear synaptopathy and no relation to lifetime noise exposure. Hear Res 2018; 364: 142-151
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Bramhall NF, Niemczak CE, Kampel SD, Billings CJ, McMillan GP. Evoked potentials reveal noise exposure-related central auditory changes despite normal audiograms. Am J Audiol 2020; 29 (02) 152-164
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Kara E, Aydın K, Akbulut AA. et al. Assessment of hidden hearing loss in normal hearing individuals with and without tinnitus. J Int Adv Otol 2020; 16 (01) 87-92
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Guest H, Munro KJ, Prendergast G, Howe S, Plack CJ. Tinnitus with a normal audiogram: relation to noise exposure but no evidence for cochlear synaptopathy. Hear Res 2017; 344: 265-274
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Stamper GC, Johnson TA. Auditory function in normal-hearing, noise-exposed human ears. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (02) 172-184
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Eggermont JJ. Ups and downs in 75 years of electrocochleography. Front Syst Neurosci 2017; 11: 2
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Grant KJ, Mepani AM, Wu P. et al. Electrophysiological markers of cochlear function correlate with hearing-in-noise performance among audiometrically normal subjects. J Neurophysiol 2020; 124 (02) 418-431
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Vasilkov V, Liberman MC, Maison SF. Isolating auditory-nerve contributions to electrocochleography by high-pass filtering: a better biomarker for cochlear nerve degeneration?. JASA Express Lett 2023; 3 (02) 024401
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Dallos P. Cochlear potentials. A status report. Audiology 1972; 11 (01) 29-41
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Dallos P. Electrical correlates of mechanical events in the cochlea. Audiology 1975; 14 (5-6): 408-418
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Kaf WA, Lewis KM, Yavuz E. et al. Fast click rate electrocochleography and auditory brainstem response in normal-hearing adults using continuous loop averaging deconvolution. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (02) 244-254
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Ferraro JA, Durrant JD. Electrocochleography in the evaluation of patients with Ménière's disease/endolymphatic hydrops. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (01) 45-68
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Gelfand SA, Schwander T, Silman S. Acoustic reflex thresholds in normal and cochlear-impaired ears: effects of no-response rates on 90th percentiles in a large sample. J Speech Hear Disord 1990; 55 (02) 198-205
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Vasudevamurthy S, Kumar AU. Middle ear muscle reflex in normal-hearing individuals with occupational noise exposure. Noise Health 2023; 25 (116) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Bramhall NF, Reavis KM, Feeney MP, Kampel SD. The impacts of noise exposure on the middle ear muscle reflex in a veteran population. Am J Audiol 2022; 31 (01) 126-142
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Billings CJ, Dillard LK, Hoskins ZB, Penman TM, Reavis KM. A large-scale examination of veterans with normal pure-tone hearing thresholds within the Department of Veterans Affairs. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (10) 928-935
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Kobler JB, Guinan Jr JJ, Vacher SR, Norris BE. Acoustic reflex frequency selectivity in single stapedius motoneurons of the cat. J Neurophysiol 1992; 68 (03) 807-817
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Costalupes JA, Young ED, Gibson DJ. Effects of continuous noise backgrounds on rate response of auditory nerve fibers in cat. J Neurophysiol 1984; 51 (06) 1326-1344
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Wilson WJ, Bowker CA. The effects of high stimulus rate on the electrocochleogram in normal-hearing subjects. Int J Audiol 2002; 41 (08) 509-517
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Burkard RF, Sims D. The human auditory brainstem response to high click rates: aging effects. Am J Audiol 2001; 10 (02) 53-61
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar