Acceptable noise level, phoneme recognition in noise, and measures of auditory efferent activity

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 16, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 530-545

  Harkrider, Ashley W ^a   Smith, Steven Brad ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b Albuquerque Speech Language and Hearing Center ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Acceptable noise levels; Acoustic reflex thresholds; Contralateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions; Phoneme recognition in noise

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC REFLEX; ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CONTROLLED STUDY; EFFERENT NERVE; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NOISE; OLIVARY NUCLEUS; OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION; PHONEME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFLEX ARC; COCHLEAR NERVE; PHYSIOLOGY; REFERENCE VALUE; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR NERVE; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; HUMANS; NOISE; OLIVARY NUCLEUS; REFERENCE VALUES; REFLEX, ACOUSTIC; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 33644652020     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16.8.2     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. ANSI. (1996) American National Standard Specification for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6-1996). New York: ANSI.
2. Beattie RC, Barr T, Roup C. (1997) Normal and hearing-impaired word recognition scores for monosyllabic words in quiet and in noise. Br J Audiol 31:153-164.
3. Berlin CI. (1999) Efferent Suppression of OAEs. In: Berlin C, ed. The Efferent Auditory System: Basic Science and Clinical Applications. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 89.
4. Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Cecola RP, Jackson DF, Szabo P. (1993) Does type I afferent neuron dysfunction reveal itself through lack of efferent suppression? Hear Res 65:40-50.
5. Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Hurley A, Wen H, Kemp DT. (1995) Binaural noise suppresses linear click-evoked otoacoustic emissions more than ipsilateral or contralateral noise. Hear Res 87:96-103.
6. Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Wen H, Szabo P, Cecola RP, Rigby P. (1993) Contralateral suppression of non-linear click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res 71:1-11.
7. Bilger RC, Neutzel JM, Rabinowitz WM, Rzeczkowski C. (1984) Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res 27:32-48.
8. Borg E, Zakrisson JE. (1973) Stapedius reflex and speech features. J Acoust Soc Am 54:525-527.
9. Borg E, Zakrisson JE. (1974) Stapedius reflex and monaural masking. Acta Otolaryngol 78:155-161.
10. Borg E, Zakrisson JE. (1975a) The activity of the stapedius muscle in man during vocalization. Acta Otolaryngol 79:325-333.
11. Borg E, Zakrisson JE. (1975b) The stapedius muscle and speech perception. In: Bench RJ, Pye A, Pye JD, eds. Sound reception in mammals. Symp Zoolog Soc Lond 37:51-68.
12. Brashears SM, Hood LJ. (2003) TEOAE Suppression: Methods, Applications, Current Findings. Paper presented at the American Academy of Audiology 15th Annual Convention and Expo, San Antonio.
13. Collet L, Kemp DT, Veuillet E. (1990) Effect of contralateral auditory stimuli on active cochlear micro-mechanical properties in human subjects. Hear Res 43:251-262.
14. Cooper JC, Jr, Cutts BP. (1971) Speech discrimination in noise. J Speech Hear Res 14:333-337.
15. Cox LC, Greenberg HJ. (1977) Effects of human middle ear muscle contractions on speech intelligibility. J Am Aud Soc 3:80-83.
16. Crowley HJ, Nabelek IV. (1996) Estimation of client-assessed hearing aid performance based upon unaided variables. J Speech Hear Res 39:19-27.
17. Danaher E, Pickett J. (1972) Relationship between the acoustic reflex and syllable discrimination. Podium presentation at the 48th Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, San Francisco, CA.
18. Cited in Mahoney T, Vernon J, Meikle M. (1979) Function of the acoustic reflex in discrimination of intense speech. Arch Otolaryngol 105:119-123.
19. Davis H. (1983) An active process in cochlear mechanics. Hear Res 9:79-90.
20. Dorman MF, Lindholm JM, Hannley MT, Leek MR. (1987) Vowel intelligibility in the absence of the acoustic reflex: performance-intensity characteristics. J Acoust Soc Am 81:562-564.
21. Formby C, Gold SL. (2002) Modification of loudness discomfort level: evidence for adaptive chronic auditory gain and its clinical relevance. Semin Hear 23:21-33.
22. Franklin C, Burchfield S, Nabelek A. (2001) Comparison of acceptance of background noise while listening to speech and loudness tolerance. Poster presented at the 2001 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention, New Orleans.
23. Giraud AL, Collet L, Chery-Croze S, Magnan J, Chays A. (1995) Evidence of a medial olivocochlear involvement in contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions in humans. Brain Res 705:15-23.
24. Giraud AL, Garnier CM, Genevieve L, Chays L, Chery-Croze S. (1997) Auditory efferents involved in speech-in-noise intelligibility. Neuroreport 8:1779-1783.
25. Green SB, Salkind NJ, Akey TM. (2002) Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and Understanding Data. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26. Guinan JJ, Jr. (1996) Physiology of olivocochlear efferents. In: Dallos P, ed. The Cochlea. New York: Springer-Verlag, 435-502.
27. Guinan JJ, Jr, Warr WB, Norris BE. (1983) Differential olivocochlear projections from the lateral versus medial zones of the superior olivary complex. J Comp Neurol 221:358-370.
28. Hood LJ, Berlin CI, Huxley A, Cecola RP, Bell B. (1996) Contralateral suppression of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans: intensity effects. Hear Res 101:113-118.
29. Jastreboff PJ, Jastreboff MM. (2003) Tinnitus retraining therapy for patients with tinnitus and decreased sound tolerance. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 36:321-336.
30. Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliot LL. (1977) Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 61:1337-1351.
31. Kemp DT, Ryan S, Bray P. (1990) A guide to the effective use of otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear 11:93-105.
32. Liberman CM, Guinan JJ, Jr. (1998) Feedback control of the auditory periphery: antimasking effects of the middle ear muscles vs. olivocochlear efferents. J Commun Disord 31:471-489.
33. Mahoney T, Vernon J, Meikle M. (1979) Function of the acoustic reflex in discrimination of intense speech. Arch Otolaryngol 105:119-123.
34. Margolis RH. (2002) Influence of Middle Ear Disease on Otoacoustic Emissions. In: Robinette MS, Glattke TJ, eds. Otoacoustic Emissions-Clinical Applications. New York: Thieme, 190-212.
35. Møller AR. (1984) Neurophysiological basis of the acoustic middle-ear reflex. In: Silman S, ed. The Acoustic Reflex. Orlando: Academic Press.
36. Nabelek AK, Burchfield SB, Tampas JW, Freyaldenhoven MC. (2004) Relationship between acceptance of background noise and hearing aid use. Podium presentation at the 2004 International Hearing Aid Research Conference, Lake Tahoe, CA.
37. Nabelek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. (2004) Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Hear Res 47:1001-1011.
38. Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. (1991) Toleration of background noises: relationships with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res 34:679-685.
39. Nilsson MJ, Felker D, Senne A, Soli SD. (1993) Comparison of hearing handicap, estimated by the AMA Method and by self-evaluation with reduction of speech intelligibility in quiet and noise. Paper presented at the American Academy of Audiology Annual Convention and Exposition, Phoenix, AZ.
40. Nilsson MJ, Gelnett D, Sullivan J, Soli SD, Goldberg RL. (1992) The influence of spatial separation, hearing loss, and English language experience on speech reception thresholds. Paper presented at the 124th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, New Orleans.
41. Nilsson MJ, Sullivan J, Soli SD. (1991) Measurement and predictions of hearing handicap using an additive noise model. Paper presented at the 122nd meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Houston, TX.
42. Pang XD, Guinan JJ, Jr. (1997) Effects of stapedius muscle contractions on the masking of auditory nerve responses. J Acoust Soc Am 102:3576-3586.
43. Pang XD, Peake WT. (1986) How do contractions of the stapedius muscle alter the acoustic properties of the ear? In: Allen JB, Hall JL, Hubbard A, Neely ST, Tubis A, eds. Peripheral Auditory Mechanisms. New York: Springer-Verlag, 36-43.
44. Patuzzi R. (1996) Cochlear micromechanics and macromechanics. In: Dallos P, Popper AN, Fay RR, eds. The Cochlea. New York: Springer, 186-257.
45. Robinette MS, Glattke T J. (2002) Otoacoustic Emissions-Clinical Applications. New York: Thieme.
46. Rogers DS, Harkrider AW, Burchfield S, Nabelek A. (2003) The influence of listener's gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 14:372-382.
47. Sahley TL, Nodar RH, Musiek FE. (1997) Efferent Auditory System Structure and Function. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
48. Silman S. (1984) Magnitude and Growth of the Acoustic Reflex. In: Silman S, ed. The Acoustic Reflex. Orlando: Academic Press, 63-93.
49. Simmons FB. (1964) Perceptual theories of middle ear muscle function. Otol Rhinol Laryngol 73:724-739.
50. Studebaker GA, Taylor R, Sherbecoe RL. (1994) The effect of noise spectrum on speech recognition performance-intensity functions. Hear Res 37:439-448.
51. Suter AH. (1985) Speech recognition in noise by individuals with mild hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 78:887-900.
52. Velenovsky DS, Glattke TJ. (2002) Contralateral and binaural suppression of otoacoustic emissions. In: Robinette MS, Glattke TJ, eds. Otoacoustic Emissions - Clinical Applications. New York: Thieme, 163-189.
53. Veuillet E, Collet L, Duchaux R. (1991) Effect of contralateral acoustic stimulation on active cochlear micromechanical properties in human subjects: dependence on stimulus variables. J Neurophysiol 65:724-735.
54. Waas B. (1976) The influence of the acoustic reflex on speech discrimination in middle ear muscle dysfunction. Podium presentation at the 52nd Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Houston, TX.
55. Cited in Mahoney T, Vernon J, Meikle M. (1979) Function of the acoustic reflex in discrimination of intense speech. Arch Otolaryngol 105:119-123.
56. Wen H, Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Jackson D, Hurley A. (1993) A program for the quantification and analysis of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. Abstr Assoc Res Otolaryngol 16:102.
57. Wilson RH, Strouse A. (2002) Northwestern University auditory test no. 6 in multi-talker babble: a preliminary report. J Rehabil Res Dev 39:105-113.
58. Wormald PJ, Rogers C, Gatehouse S. (1995) Speech discrimination in patients with Bell's palsy and a paralyzed stapedius muscle. Clin Otolaryngol 20:59-62.
59. Yost WA. (1994) Binaural hearing. In: Fundamentals of Hearing. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 168-193.