Literature DB >> 30882533

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

Aryn M Kamerer1, Judy G Kopun, Sara E Fultz, Stephen T Neely, Daniel M Rasetshwane.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Recent animal studies have shown that noise exposure can cause cochlear synaptopathy without permanent threshold shift. Because the noise exposure preferentially damaged auditory nerve fibers that processed suprathreshold sounds (low-spontaneous rate fibers), it has been suggested that synaptopathy may underlie suprathreshold hearing deficits in humans. Recently, several researchers have suggested measures to identify the pathology or pathologies underlying suprathreshold hearing deficits in humans based on results from animal studies; however, the reliability of some of these measures have not been assessed. The purpose of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of measures that may have the potential to relate suprathreshold hearing deficits to site(s)-of-lesion along the peripheral auditory system in humans.
DESIGN: Adults with audiometric normal hearing were tested on a battery of behavioral and physiologic measures that included (1) thresholds in quiet (TIQ), (2) thresholds in noise (TIN), (3) frequency-modulation detection threshold (FMDT), (4) word recognition in four listening conditions, (5) distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE), (6) middle ear muscle reflex (MEMR), (7) tone burst-elicited auditory brainstem response (tbABR), and (8) speech-evoked ABR (sABR). Data collection for each measure was repeated over two visits separated by at least one week. The residuals of the correlation between the suprathreshold measures and TIQ serve as functional and quantitative proxies for threshold-independent hearing disorders because they represent the portion of the raw measures that is not dependent on TIQ. Reliability of the residual measures was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC).
RESULTS: Reliability for the residual measures was good (ICC ≥ 0.75) for FMDT, DPOAEs, and MEMR. Residual measures showing moderate reliability (0.5 ≤ ICC < 0.75) were tbABR wave I amplitude, TIN, and word recognition in quiet, noise, and time-compressed speech with reverberation. Wave V of the tbABR, waves of the sABR, and recognition of time-compressed words had poor test-retest reliability (ICC < 0.5).
CONCLUSIONS: Reliability of residual measures was mixed, suggesting that care should be taken when selecting measures for diagnostic tests of threshold-independent hearing disorders. Quantifying hidden hearing loss as the variance in suprathreshold measures of auditory function that is not due to TIQ may provide a reliable estimate of threshold-independent hearing disorders in humans.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30882533      PMCID: PMC6745005          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000711

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


  67 in total

1.  THE RELIABILITY OF REPEATED AUDITORY THRESHOLD DETERMINATION.

Authors:  G R ATHERLEY; I DINGWALL-FORDYCE
Journal:  Br J Ind Med       Date:  1963-07

Review 2.  Sensory-based learning disability: Insights from brainstem processing of speech sounds.

Authors:  Karen Banai; Daniel Abrams; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Relations between perceptual measures of temporal processing, auditory-evoked brainstem responses and speech intelligibility in noise.

Authors:  Alexandra Papakonstantinou; Olaf Strelcyk; Torsten Dau
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-02-24       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Dynamics of cochlear synaptopathy after acoustic overexposure.

Authors:  Leslie D Liberman; Jun Suzuki; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-02-13

5.  Noise-induced cochlear neuropathy is selective for fibers with low spontaneous rates.

Authors:  Adam C Furman; Sharon G Kujawa; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  The Effect of Test, Electrode, and Rate on Electrocochleography Measures.

Authors:  Alyson Butler Lake; Andrew Stuart
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Synaptopathy in the noise-exposed and aging cochlea: Primary neural degeneration in acquired sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Sharon G Kujawa; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  The temporal relationship between speech auditory brainstem responses and the acoustic pattern of the phoneme /ba/ in normal-hearing adults.

Authors:  I Akhoun; S Gallégo; A Moulin; M Ménard; E Veuillet; C Berger-Vachon; L Collet; H Thai-Van
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 3.708

Review 9.  Effects of Recreational Noise on Threshold and Suprathreshold Measures of Auditory Function.

Authors:  Angela N C Fulbright; Colleen G Le Prell; Scott K Griffiths; Edward Lobarinas
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2017-10-10

10.  Loud Music Exposure and Cochlear Synaptopathy in Young Adults: Isolated Auditory Brainstem Response Effects but No Perceptual Consequences.

Authors:  John H Grose; Emily Buss; Joseph W Hall
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more
  5 in total

1.  Electrophysiological markers of cochlear function correlate with hearing-in-noise performance among audiometrically normal subjects.

Authors:  Kelsie J Grant; Anita M Mepani; Peizhe Wu; Kenneth E Hancock; Victor de Gruttola; M Charles Liberman; Stéphane F Maison
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Evidence for Loss of Activity in Low-Spontaneous-Rate Auditory Nerve Fibers of Older Adults.

Authors:  Carolyn M McClaskey; James W Dias; Richard A Schmiedt; Judy R Dubno; Kelly C Harris
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-12

Review 3.  Animal-to-Human Translation Difficulties and Problems With Proposed Coding-in-Noise Deficits in Noise-Induced Synaptopathy and Hidden Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Sara Ripley; Li Xia; Zhen Zhang; Steve J Aiken; Jian Wang
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-05-23       Impact factor: 5.152

4.  Envelope following responses predict speech-in-noise performance in normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Anita M Mepani; Sarah Verhulst; Kenneth E Hancock; Markus Garrett; Viacheslav Vasilkov; Kara Bennett; Victor de Gruttola; M Charles Liberman; Stéphane F Maison
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 5.  Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Using Investigational Medicines for the Inner Ear: Previous Trial Outcomes Should Inform Future Trial Design.

Authors:  Colleen G Le Prell
Journal:  Antioxid Redox Signal       Date:  2021-10-04       Impact factor: 7.468

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.