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

Acceptable noise level (ANL) is unrelated to sentence recognition in noise but may be related to phoneme recognition in noise (PRN). Individual differences in efferent activity in medial olivocochlear bundle (MOCB) and acoustic reflex (AR) pathways may account for intersubject variability in ANL and PRN. Monotic and dichotic ANL, monotic PRN, contralateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions, and ipsilateral and contralateral acoustic reflex thresholds were measured in 31 adults with normal hearing. Results indicate that monotic ANL and PRN are unrelated. Monotic and dichotic ANL are related, suggesting that nonperipheral factors mediate ANL. Intersubject variability in ANL cannot be accounted for by individual differences in MOCB or AR activation. Intersubject variability in PRN cannot be accounted for by individual differences in MOCB or contralateral AR activation. It may be influenced by the ipsilateral AR pathway. Efferent activity in the contralateral AR arc is correlated with efferent activity in the MOCB.

[1]  Sigfrid D. Soli,et al.  Measurement and predictions of hearing handicap using an additive noise model. , 1991 .

[2]  Anna K Nabelek,et al.  Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[3]  S. Silman.  7 – Magnitude and Growth of the Acoustic Reflex , 1984 .

[4]  Anna K Nabelek,et al.  The influence of listener's gender on the acceptance of background noise. , 2003, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[5]  G A Studebaker,et al.  The effect of noise spectrum on speech recognition performance-intensity functions. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[6]  D T Kemp,et al.  A Guide to the Effective Use of Otoacoustic Emissions , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[7]  C. Micheyl,et al.  Auditory efferents involved in speech‐in‐noise intelligibility , 1997, Neuroreport.

[8]  R. Nodar,et al.  Efferent Auditory System: Structure and Function , 1997 .

[9]  M. Dorman,et al.  Vowel intelligibility in the absence of the acoustic reflex: performance-intensity characteristics. , 1987, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Sigfrid D. Soli,et al.  Norms for the hearing in noise test: The influence of spatial separation, hearing loss, and English language experience on speech reception thresholds , 1992 .

[11]  Neil Salkind,et al.  Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and Understanding Data with Disk , 1997 .

[12]  C. Berlin,et al.  Does Type I afferent neuron dysfunction reveal itself through lack of efferent suppression? , 1993, Hearing Research.

[13]  Annette Hurley,et al.  Contralateral suppression of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans: intensity effects , 1996, Hearing Research.

[14]  Hallowell Davis,et al.  An active process in cochlear mechanics , 1983, Hearing Research.

[15]  C. Formby,et al.  Modification of Loudness Discomfort Level: Evidence for Adaptive Chronic Auditory Gain and Its Clinical Relevance , 2002 .

[16]  Sound Reception in Mammals , 1976 .

[17]  Robert Patuzzi,et al.  Cochlear Micromechanics and Macromechanics , 1996 .

[18]  J. Guinan.  Physiology of Olivocochlear Efferents , 1996 .

[19]  E Borg,et al.  The activity of the stapedius muscle in man during vocalization. , 1975, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[20]  A. Møller.  1 – Neurophysiological Basis of the Acoustic Middle-Ear Reflex , 1984 .

[21]  M. Meikle,et al.  Function of the acoustic reflex in discrimination of intense speech. , 1979, Archives of otolaryngology.

[22]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  How Do Contractions of the Stapedius Muscle Alter the Acoustic Properties of the Ear , 1986 .

[24]  Margaret M. Jastreboff,et al.  Tinnitus retraining therapy for patients with tinnitus and decreased sound tolerance. , 2003, Otolaryngologic clinics of North America.

[25]  L. Collet,et al.  Effect of contralateral acoustic stimulation on active cochlear micromechanical properties in human subjects: dependence on stimulus variables. , 1991, Journal of Neurophysiology.

[26]  Jont B. Allen,et al.  Peripheral Auditory Mechanisms , 1986 .

[27]  Erik Borg,et al.  Stapedius reflex and speech features , 1973 .

[28]  I. Nabelek,et al.  Estimation of client-assessed hearing aid performance based upon unaided variables. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[29]  T R Letowski,et al.  Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[30]  L. J. Hood,et al.  Contralateral suppression of non-linear click-evoked otoacoustic emissions , 1993, Hearing Research.

[31]  J C Cooper,et al.  Speech discrimination in noise. , 1971, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[32]  J. Guinan,et al.  Differential olivocochlear projections from lateral versus medial zones of the superior olivary complex , 1983, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[33]  E. Borg,et al.  Stapedius reflex and monaural masking. , 1974, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[34]  J. Guinan,et al.  Feedback control of the auditory periphery: anti-masking effects of middle ear muscles vs. olivocochlear efferents. , 1998, Journal of communication disorders.

[35]  David T. Kemp,et al.  Effect of contralateral auditory stimuli on active cochlear micro-mechanical properties in human subjects , 1990, Hearing Research.

[36]  C Roup,et al.  Normal and hearing-impaired word recognition scores for monosyllabic words in quiet and noise. , 1997, British journal of audiology.

[37]  Simmons Fb.  PERCEPTUAL THEORIES OF MIDDLE EAR MUSCLE FUNCTION. , 1964 .

[38]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. , 1979, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[39]  S. Gatehouse,et al.  Speech discrimination in patients with Bell's palsy and a paralysed stapedius muscle. , 1995, Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences.

[40]  C. Berlin,et al.  Binaural noise suppresses linear click-evoked otoacoustic emissions more than ipsilateral or contralateral noise , 1995, Hearing Research.

[41]  Martin S. Robinette,et al.  Otoacoustic Emissions: Clinical Applications , 1997 .

[42]  Charles I. Berlin,et al.  The efferent auditory system : basic science and clinical applications , 1999 .

[43]  Richard H Wilson,et al.  Auditory Test No . 6 in multi-talker babble : A preliminary report , 2002 .

[44]  A. Suter.  Speech recognition in noise by individuals with mild hearing impairments. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  X. Pang,et al.  Effects of stapedius-muscle contractions on the masking of auditory-nerve responses. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[46]  A. Giraud,et al.  Evidence of a medial olivocochlear involvement in contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions in humans , 1995, Brain Research.