Literature DB >> 25350405

Auditory function in normal-hearing, noise-exposed human ears.

Greta C Stamper1, Tiffany A Johnson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether suprathreshold measures of auditory function, such as distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) and auditory brainstem responses (ABRs), are correlated with noise exposure history in normal-hearing human ears. Recent data from animal studies have revealed significant deafferentation of auditory nerve fibers after full recovery from temporary noise-induced hearing loss. Furthermore, these data report smaller ABR wave I amplitudes in noise-exposed animal ears when compared with non-noise-exposed control animals or prenoise exposure amplitudes in the same animal. It is unknown whether a similar phenomenon exists in the normal-hearing, noise-exposed human ear.
DESIGN: Thirty normal-hearing human subjects with a range of noise exposure backgrounds (NEBs) participated in this study. NEB was quantified by the use of a noise exposure questionnaire that extensively queried loud sound exposure during the previous 12 months. DPOAEs were collected at three f2s (1, 2, and 4 kHz) over a range of L2s. DPOAE stimulus level began at 80 dB forward-pressure level and decreased in 10 dB steps. Two-channel ABRs were collected in response to click stimuli and 4 kHz tone bursts; one channel used an ipsilateral mastoid electrode and the other an ipsilateral tympanic membrane electrode. ABR stimulus level began at 90 dB nHL and was decreased in 10 dB steps. Amplitudes of waves I and V of the ABR were analyzed.
RESULTS: A statistically significant relationship between ABR wave I amplitude and NEB was found for clicked-evoked ABRs recorded at a stimulus level of 90 dB nHL using a mastoid recording electrode. For this condition, ABR wave I amplitudes decreased as a function of NEB. Similar systematic trends were present for ABRs collected in response to clicks and 4 kHz tone bursts at additional suprathreshold stimulation levels (≥70 dB nHL). The relationship weakened and disappeared with decreases in stimulation level (≤60 dB nHL). Similar patterns were present for ABRs collected using a tympanic membrane electrode. However, these relationships were not statistically significant and were weaker and more variable than those collected using a mastoid electrode. In contrast to the findings for ABR wave I, wave V amplitude was not significantly related to NEB. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a systematic relationship between suprathreshold DPOAEs and NEB.
CONCLUSIONS: A systematic trend of smaller ABR wave I amplitudes was found in normal-hearing human ears with greater amounts of voluntary NEB in response to suprathreshold clicks and 4 kHz tone bursts. These findings are consistent with the data from previous work completed in animals, where the reduction in suprathreshold responses was a result of deafferentation of high-threshold/low-spontaneous rate auditory nerve fibers. These data suggest that a similar mechanism might be operating in human ears after exposure to high sound levels. However, evidence of this damage is only apparent when examining suprathreshold wave I amplitude of the ABR. In contrast, suprathreshold DPOAE level was not significantly related to NEB. This was expected, given noise-induced auditory damage findings in animal ears did not extend to the outer hair cells, the generator for the DPOAE response.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25350405      PMCID: PMC4374361          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  41 in total

1.  ABR recordings in newborns using an ear canal electrode.

Authors:  Anupa Gaddam; John A Ferraro
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  A power primer.

Authors:  J Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 17.737

3.  Recall bias in epidemiologic studies.

Authors:  S S Coughlin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Tinnitus with a normal audiogram: physiological evidence for hidden hearing loss and computational model.

Authors:  Roland Schaette; David McAlpine
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Do "optimal" conditions improve distortion product otoacoustic emission test performance?

Authors:  Benjamin J Kirby; Judy G Kopun; Hongyang Tan; Stephen T Neely; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Analysis of the click-evoked brainstem potentials in man unsing high-pass noise masking.

Authors:  M Don; J J Eggermont
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1978-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Primary neural degeneration in the Guinea pig cochlea after reversible noise-induced threshold shift.

Authors:  Harrison W Lin; Adam C Furman; Sharon G Kujawa; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-06-18

8.  Degeneration in the cochlea after noise damage: primary versus secondary events.

Authors:  B A Bohne; G W Harding
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  2000-07

9.  Hyperactivity in the auditory midbrain after acoustic trauma: dependence on cochlear activity.

Authors:  W H A M Mulders; D Robertson
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 3.590

10.  Predicting auditory nerve survival using the compound action potential.

Authors:  Brian R Earl; Mark E Chertoff
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  74 in total

1.  Optimizing Auditory Brainstem Response Acquisition Using Interleaved Frequencies.

Authors:  Brad N Buran; Sean Elkins; J Beth Kempton; Edward V Porsov; John V Brigande; Stephen V David
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-07-09

2.  Reliability of Measures Intended to Assess Threshold-Independent Hearing Disorders.

Authors:  Aryn M Kamerer; Judy G Kopun; Sara E Fultz; Stephen T Neely; Daniel M Rasetshwane
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 3.  Cortical and Sensory Causes of Individual Differences in Selective Attention Ability Among Listeners With Normal Hearing Thresholds.

Authors:  Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-10-17       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Non-Invasive Assays of Cochlear Synaptopathy - Candidates and Considerations.

Authors:  Hari M Bharadwaj; Alexandra R Mai; Jennifer M Simpson; Inyong Choi; Michael G Heinz; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 3.590

5.  Aging alters envelope representations of speech-like sounds in the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Aravindakshan Parthasarathy; Björn Herrmann; Edward L Bartlett
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 4.673

6.  Examining physiological and perceptual consequences of noise exposure.

Authors:  Aryn M Kamerer; Judy G Kopun; Sara E Fultz; Carissa Allen; Stephen T Neely; Daniel M Rasetshwane
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  The Role of Cognition in Common Measures of Peripheral Synaptopathy and Hidden Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Aryn M Kamerer; Angela AuBuchon; Sara E Fultz; Judy G Kopun; Stephen T Neely; Daniel M Rasetshwane
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 1.493

Review 8.  How We Hear: The Perception and Neural Coding of Sound.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 24.137

Review 9.  Subcortical pathways: Towards a better understanding of auditory disorders.

Authors:  Richard A Felix; Boris Gourévitch; Christine V Portfors
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and its Prevention: Current Issues in Mammalian Hearing.

Authors:  Colleen G Le Prell; Troy A Hackett; Ramnarayan Ramachandran
Journal:  Curr Opin Physiol       Date:  2020-07-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.