Literature DB >> 15953526

Cochlear compression in listeners with moderate sensorineural hearing loss.

Enrique A Lopez-Poveda1, Christopher J Plack, Ray Meddis, José L Blanco.   

Abstract

Psychophysical estimates of basilar membrane (BM) responses suggest that normal-hearing (NH) listeners exhibit constant compression for tones at the characteristic frequency (CF) across the CF range from 250 to 8000 Hz. The frequency region over which compression occurs is broadest for low CFs. This study investigates the extent that these results differ for three hearing-impaired (HI) listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. Temporal masking curves (TMCs) were measured over a wide range of probe (500-8000 Hz) and masker frequencies (0.5-1.2 times the probe frequency). From these, estimated BM response functions were derived and compared with corresponding functions for NH listeners. Compressive responses for tones both at and below CF occur for the three HI ears across the CF range tested. The maximum amount of compression was uncorrelated with absolute threshold. It was close to normal for two of the three HI ears, but was either slightly (at CFs < or =1000 Hz) or considerably (at CFs > or =4000 Hz) reduced for the third ear. Results are interpreted in terms of the relative damage to inner and outer hair cells affecting each of the HI ears. Alternative interpretations for the results are also discussed, some of which cast doubts on the assumptions of the TMC-based method and other behavioral methods for estimating human BM compression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15953526     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2005.03.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  24 in total

1.  Individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities.

Authors:  Gayla L Poling; Amy R Horwitz; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-09-22

2.  Effects of background noise level on behavioral estimates of basilar-membrane compression.

Authors:  Melanie J Gregan; Peggy B Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Psychophysical estimates of nonlinear cochlear processing in younger and older listeners.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Nonadditivity of forward and simultaneous masking.

Authors:  Adam Svec; Suyash N Joshi; Walt Jesteadt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Comparison of distortion-product otoacoustic emission growth rates and slopes of forward-masked psychometric functions.

Authors:  Joyce Rodríguez; Stephen T Neely; Walt Jesteadt; Hongyang Tan; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Temporal masking functions for listeners with real and simulated hearing loss.

Authors:  Joseph G Desloge; Charlotte M Reed; Louis D Braida; Zachary D Perez; Lorraine A Delhorne
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Computational modeling of individual differences in behavioral estimates of cochlear nonlinearities.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings; Jayne B Ahlstrom; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-09-30

8.  Auditory filter tuning inferred with short sinusoidal and notched-noise maskers.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings; Elizabeth A Strickland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Tinnitus and patterns of hearing loss.

Authors:  Christine M Tan; Wendy Lecluyse; Don McFerran; Ray Meddis
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-01-18

Review 10.  Review article: review of the literature on temporal resolution in listeners with cochlear hearing impairment: a critical assessment of the role of suprathreshold deficits.

Authors:  Charlotte M Reed; Louis D Braida; Patrick M Zurek
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2008-12-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.