Literature DB >> 31584501

Middle Ear Muscle Reflex and Word Recognition in "Normal-Hearing" Adults: Evidence for Cochlear Synaptopathy?

Anita M Mepani1,2, Sarah A Kirk1,2, Kenneth E Hancock1,3, Kara Bennett4, Victor de Gruttola4, M Charles Liberman1,3,5, Stéphane F Maison1,3,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Permanent threshold elevation after noise exposure, ototoxic drugs, or aging is caused by loss of sensory cells; however, animal studies show that hair cell loss is often preceded by degeneration of synapses between sensory cells and auditory nerve fibers. The silencing of these neurons, especially those with high thresholds and low spontaneous rates, degrades auditory processing and may contribute to difficulties in understanding speech in noise. Although cochlear synaptopathy can be diagnosed in animals by measuring suprathreshold auditory brainstem responses, its diagnosis in humans remains a challenge. In mice, cochlear synaptopathy is also correlated with measures of middle ear muscle (MEM) reflex strength, possibly because the missing high-threshold neurons are important drivers of this reflex. The authors hypothesized that measures of the MEM reflex might be better than other assays of peripheral function in predicting difficulties hearing in difficult listening environments in human subjects.
DESIGN: The authors recruited 165 normal-hearing healthy subjects, between 18 and 63 years of age, with no history of ear or hearing problems, no history of neurologic disorders, and unremarkable otoscopic examinations. Word recognition in quiet and in difficult listening situations was measured in four ways: using isolated words from the Northwestern University auditory test number six corpus with either (a) 0 dB signal to noise, (b) 45% time compression with reverberation, or (c) 65% time compression with reverberation, and (d) with a modified version of the QuickSIN. Audiometric thresholds were assessed at standard and extended high frequencies. Outer hair cell function was assessed by distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs). Middle ear function and reflexes were assessed using three methods: the acoustic reflex threshold as measured clinically, wideband tympanometry as measured clinically, and a custom wideband method that uses a pair of click probes flanking an ipsilateral noise elicitor. Other aspects of peripheral auditory function were assessed by measuring click-evoked gross potentials, that is, summating potential (SP) and action potential (AP) from ear canal electrodes.
RESULTS: After adjusting for age and sex, word recognition scores were uncorrelated with audiometric or DPOAE thresholds, at either standard or extended high frequencies. MEM reflex thresholds were significantly correlated with scores on isolated word recognition, but not with the modified version of the QuickSIN. The highest pairwise correlations were seen using the custom assay. AP measures were correlated with some of the word scores, but not as highly as seen for the MEM custom assay, and only if amplitude was measured from SP peak to AP peak, rather than baseline to AP peak. The highest pairwise correlations with word scores, on all four tests, were seen with the SP/AP ratio, followed closely by SP itself. When all predictor variables were combined in a stepwise multivariate regression, SP/AP dominated models for all four word score outcomes. MEM measures only enhanced the adjusted r values for the 45% time compression test. The only other predictors that enhanced model performance (and only for two outcome measures) were measures of interaural threshold asymmetry.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that, among normal-hearing subjects, there is a significant peripheral contribution to diminished hearing performance in difficult listening environments that is not captured by either threshold audiometry or DPOAEs. The significant univariate correlations between word scores and either SP/AP, SP, MEM reflex thresholds, or AP amplitudes (in that order) are consistent with a type of primary neural degeneration. However, interpretation is clouded by uncertainty as to the mix of pre- and postsynaptic contributions to the click-evoked SP. None of the assays presented here has the sensitivity to diagnose neural degeneration on a case-by-case basis; however, these tests may be useful in longitudinal studies to track accumulation of neural degeneration in individual subjects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31584501      PMCID: PMC6934902          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000804

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


  91 in total

1.  Electrocochleography is more sensitive than distortion-product otoacoustic emission test for detecting noise-induced temporary threshold shift.

Authors:  Jin Sook Kim; Eui-Cheol Nam; Sung Il Park
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.497

2.  Age-related loss of activity of auditory-nerve fibers.

Authors:  R A Schmiedt; J H Mills; F A Boettcher
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  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

Review 4.  Advances in the neurobiology of hearing disorders: recent developments regarding the basis of tinnitus and hyperacusis.

Authors:  Marlies Knipper; Pim Van Dijk; Isidro Nunes; Lukas Rüttiger; Ulrike Zimmermann
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 11.685

5.  Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. III. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves.

Authors:  M C Liberman; L W Dodds
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  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

Review 7.  Comparison of occupational noise legislation in the Americas: an overview and analysis.

Authors:  Jorge P Arenas; Alice H Suter
Journal:  Noise Health       Date:  2014 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 0.867

Review 8.  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

9.  Non-Monotonic Relation between Noise Exposure Severity and Neuronal Hyperactivity in the Auditory Midbrain.

Authors:  Lara Li Hesse; Warren Bakay; Hui-Ching Ong; Lucy Anderson; Jonathan Ashmore; David McAlpine; Jennifer Linden; Roland Schaette
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 4.003

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
  27 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.  Modeling the effects of age and hearing loss on concurrent vowel scores.

Authors:  Harshavardhan Settibhaktini; Michael G Heinz; Ananthakrishna Chintanpalli
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Temporal Envelope Coding of the Human Auditory Nerve Inferred from Electrocochleography: Comparison with Envelope Following Responses.

Authors:  Jessica Chen; Skyler G Jennings
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-08-10

Review 4.  Clinical and investigational tools for monitoring noise-induced hyperacusis.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-07       Impact factor: 2.482

5.  Role of cochlear synaptopathy in cytomegalovirus infected mice and in children.

Authors:  Ali Almishaal; Pranav Dinesh Mathur; Lesley Franklin; Kevin Shi; Travis Haller; Aleksandra Martinovic; Kayla Hirschmugl; Brian R Earl; Chong Zhang; Jun Yang; Michael R Deans; Matthew A Firpo; Albert H Park
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 1.675

6.  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

7.  The search for correlates of age-related cochlear synaptopathy: Measures of temporal envelope processing and spatial release from speech-on-speech masking.

Authors:  Chhayakanta Patro; Heather A Kreft; Magdalena Wojtczak
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 3.672

Review 8.  Hearing loss and brain plasticity: the hyperactivity phenomenon.

Authors:  Björn Herrmann; Blake E Butler
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 3.270

Review 9.  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

10.  Extended high frequency hearing and speech perception implications in adults and children.

Authors:  Lisa L Hunter; Brian B Monson; David R Moore; Sumitrajit Dhar; Beverly A Wright; Kevin J Munro; Lina Motlagh Zadeh; Chelsea M Blankenship; Samantha M Stiepan; Jonathan H Siegel
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.