Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T12:22:04.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of chronic noise exposure on speech-in-noise perception in the presence of normal audiometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2013

A J Hope
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK
L M Luxon
Affiliation:
Neuro-otology Department, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK University College London Ear Institute, UK
D-E Bamiou*
Affiliation:
Neuro-otology Department, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK University College London Ear Institute, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Dr D-E Bamiou, Neuro-otology Department, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK Fax: +44 (0)203 448 4775 E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Objective:

To assess auditory processing in noise-exposed subjects with normal audiograms and compare the findings with those of non-noise-exposed normal controls.

Methods:

Ten noise-exposed Royal Air Force aircrew pilots were compared with 10 Royal Air Force administrators who had no history of noise exposure. Participants were matched in terms of age and sex. The subjects were assessed in terms of: pure tone audiometry, transient evoked otoacoustic emissions, suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in contralateral noise and auditory processing task performance (i.e. masking, frequency discrimination, auditory attention and speech-in-noise).

Results:

All subjects had normal pure tone audiometry and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions amplitudes in both ears. The noise-exposed aircrew had similar pure tone audiometry thresholds to controls, but right ear transient evoked otoacoustic emissions were larger and speech-in-noise thresholds were elevated in the noise-exposed subjects compared to controls.

Conclusion:

The finding of poorer speech-in-noise perception may reflect noise-related impairment of auditory processing in retrocochlear pathways. Audiometry may not detect early, significant noise-induced hearing impairment.

Type
Main Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Noise at work. In: http://www.hse.gov.uk/noise/ [14 December 2012]Google Scholar
2Palmer, KT, Griffin, MJ, Syddall, HE, Davis, A, Pannett, B, Coggon, D. Occupational exposure to noise and the attributable burden of hearing difficulties in Great Britain. Occup Environ Med 2002;59:634–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Dobie, RA. Noise-induced hearing loss. In: Bailey, BJ, ed. Head and Neck Surgery-Otolaryngology, 2nd edn.Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998;1782–92Google Scholar
5The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. In: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1643/contents/made [13 December 2012]Google Scholar
6Saunders, JC, Dear, SP, Schneider, ME. The anatomical consequences of acoustic injury: a review and tutorial. J Acoust Soc Am 1985;78:833–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Saunders, JC, Cohen, YE, Szymko, YM. The structural and functional consequences of acoustic injury in the cochlea and peripheral auditory system: a five year update. J Acoust Soc Am 1991;90:136–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Kujawa, SG, Liberman, MC. Acceleration of age-related hearing loss by early noise exposure: evidence of a misspent youth. J Neurosci 2006;26:2115–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Basta, D, Tzschentke, B, Ernst, A. Noise-induced cell death in the mouse medial geniculate body and primary auditory cortex. Neurosci Lett 2005;381:199204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Wang, J, Salvi, RJ, Powers, N. Plasticity of response properties of inferior colliculus neurons following acute cochlea damage. J Neurophysiol 1996;75:171–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Küpper, TE, Steffgen, J, Jansing, P. Noise exposure during alpine helicopter rescue. Ann Occup Hyg 2004;48:475–81Google ScholarPubMed
12Kemp, DT, Ryan, S, Bray, P. A guide to the effective use of otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear 1990;11:93105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Hurley, RM, Musiek, FE. Effectiveness of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) in predicting hearing level. J Am Acad Audiol 1994;5:195203Google ScholarPubMed
14Collet, L, Kemp, DT, Veuillet, E, Duclaux, R, Moulin, A, Morgon, A. Effect of contralateral auditory stimuli on active cochlear micro-mechanical properties in human subjects. Hear Res 1990;43:251–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Brown, GJ, Ferry, RT, Meddis, R. A computer model of auditory efferent suppression: implications for the recognition of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2010;127:943–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Ceranic, BJ, Prasher, DK, Raglan, E, Luxon, LM. Tinnitus after head injury: evidence from otoacoustic emissions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998;65:523–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Moore, DR, Ferguson, MA, Edmondson-Jones, AM, Ratib, S, Riley, A. Nature of auditory processing disorder in children. Pediatrics 2010;126:e382–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Desai, A, Reed, D, Richards, S, Prasher, D. Absence of otoacoustic emissions in subjects with normal audiometric thresholds implies exposure to noise. Noise Health 1999;1:5865Google ScholarPubMed
19Peng, JH, Tao, ZZ, Huang, ZW. Long-term sound conditioning increases distortion product otoacoustic emission amplitudes and decreases olivocochlear efferent reflex strength. Neuroreport 2007;18:1167–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Mukari, SZS, Mamat, WHW. Medial olivocochlear functioning and speech perception in noise in older adults. Audiol Neurootol 2008;13:328–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Sliwinska-Kowalska, M, Kotylo, P. Occupational exposure to noise decreases otoacoustic emission efferent suppression. Int J Audiol 2002;41:113–19Google ScholarPubMed
22Kujawa, SG, Liberman, MC. Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 2009;29:14077–85CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Kraus, N, Bradlow, AR, Cheatham, MA, Cunningham, J, King, CD, Koch, DB et al. Consequences of neural asynchrony: a case of auditory neuropathy. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2000;1:3345CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Zeng, FG, Kong, YY, Michalewski, HJ, Starr, A. Perceptual consequences of disrupted auditory nerve activity. J Neurophysiol 2005;93:3050–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Brattico, E, Kujala, T, Tervaniemi, M, Alku, P, Ambrosi, L, Monitillo, V. Long-term noise exposure altered the strength and the hemispheric organization of speech-sound discrimination and decreased the speed of sound-change processing. Clin Neurophysiol 2005;116:190203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Kujala, T, Shtyrov, Y, Winkler, I, Saher, M, Tervaniemi, M, Sallinen, M et al. Long-term exposure to noise impairs cortical sound processing and attention control. Psychophysiology 2004;41:875–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Moore, DR, Ferguson, M, Halliday, F, Riley, A. Frequency discrimination in children; perception, learning and attention. Hear Res 2008;238:147–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Tramo, MJ, Cariani, PA, Koh, CK, Makris, N, Braida, LD. Neurophysiology and neuroanatomy of pitch perception: auditory cortex. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2005;1060:148–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Schmuziger, N, Patscheke, J, Probst, R. Hearing in nonprofessional pop/rock musicians. Ear Hear 2006;27:321–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed