Sensitivity of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in humans to tonal over-exposure: Time course of recovery and effects of lowering L2

An important concern of industrial hearing-conservation programs is detecting the onset of noise-induced hearing loss. If it can be shown that otoacoustic emissions are sufficiently sensitive to reliably detect auditory fatigue and the permanent hearing loss that eventually develops, they could become an important part of the hearing-conservation test battery. The present study in humans was designed to examine the influence of overall primary-tone level and the effects of lowering the f2 primary on the sensitivity of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) to acoustic overstimulation. One ear from each of 14 subjects with normal hearing was exposed to a 105-dB SPL pure tone at 2.8 kHz for 3 min using a protocol consisting of distinct pre-exposure, exposure, and post-exposure periods. As a quantitative index of the functional status of the outer hair cells, 2f1-f2 DPOAEs were monitored systematically over time using four stimulus-test conditions consisting of either one of two levels of equilevel primary tones, or one of two levels of offset primaries, with L2 set 25 dB lower than L1. The overall finding was that the DPOAE protocol incorporating both the lowest level of stimulation and an f2-primary tone that was 25 dB below the level of the f1 stimulus [i.e., L1 (55 dB SPL) - L2 (30 dB SPL) = 25 dB] was most sensitive to the exposure effects. The results establish that DPOAEs elicited with unequal, in contrast to equal-level primaries, have comparable signal-to-noise ratios, but are considerably more sensitive to reductions in emission levels induced by exposure to short-lasting, moderately intense tones. The recovery of DPOAE amplitudes over the first 15 min post-exposure appeared to be roughly linear in log time and, in many cases, could be closely approximated by fitting a logarithmic curve to the post-exposure data. From these functions, the initial amount of loss (y-intercept) and the slope of recovery were identified as potential measures of vulnerability to acoustic exposure in that these variables appeared to be related to the susceptibility of some of the subjects, who also participated in a subsequent experiment on the behavioral effects of the exposure stimulus. Finally, compared to behaviorally measured temporary threshold shift (TTS), the time course of the recovery for DPOAEs was very similar, suggesting that, with the appropriate parameters, DPOAEs can be as sensitive to TTS as routine pure-tone audiometry.

[1]  Glen K. Martin,et al.  Distortion Product Emissions in Humans , 1990, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[2]  Y E Cohen,et al.  The structural and functional consequences of acoustic injury in the cochlea and peripheral auditory system: a five year update. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  A. M. Brown,et al.  Measurement of acoustic distortion reveals underlying similarities between human and rodent mechanical responses. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Recovery of eighth nerve action potential thresholds after exposure to short, intense pure tones: similarities with temporary threshold shift , 1983, Hearing Research.

[5]  B L Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Evidence for two discrete sources of 2f1-f2 distortion-product otoacoustic emission in rabbit: I. Differential dependence on stimulus parameters. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  W. W. Clark,et al.  Animal Model for the 4-kHz Tonal Dip , 1978, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

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

[8]  A. Forge,et al.  Acoustic distortion products can be used to monitor the effects of chronic gentamicin treatment , 1989, Hearing Research.

[9]  M. J. McCoy,et al.  Clinical Testing of Distortion‐Product Otoacoustic Emissions , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Cochlear nonlinearities inferred from two-tone distortion products in the ear canal of the alligator lizard , 1984, Hearing Research.

[11]  W. Selters Adaptation and Fatigue , 1964 .

[12]  B. Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Distortion-product emissions in rabbit: II. Prediction of chronic-noise effects by brief pure-tone exposures , 1993, Hearing Research.

[13]  M. Lenoir,et al.  Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in hearing-impaired mutant mice. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  I. Hirsh,et al.  Auditory‐Threshold Recovery after Exposures to Pure Tones , 1955 .

[15]  A. Dancer,et al.  Auditory Sensitivity, Auditory Fatigue and Cochlear Mechanics , 1986 .

[16]  B. Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Neural correlates of auditory fatigue: frequency-dependent changes in activity of single cochlear nerve fibers. , 1978, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  M. Whitehead,et al.  Actively and Passively Generated Acoustic Distortion at 2f1-f2 in Rabbits , 1990 .

[18]  A. M. Brown,et al.  Acoustic distortion from rodent ears: A comparison of responses from rats, guinea pigs and gerbils , 1987, Hearing Research.

[19]  W Jesteadt,et al.  Otoacoustic emissions from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects: distortion product responses. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  D T Kemp,et al.  Acoustic emission cochleography--practical aspects. , 1986, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[21]  The relation among hearing loss, sensory cell loss and tuning characteristics in the chinchilla , 1989, Hearing Research.

[22]  J. Mott,et al.  Behavior of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions following intense ipsilateral acoustic stimulation , 1989, Hearing Research.

[23]  J. L. Hall,et al.  Two-tone distortion products in a nonlinear model of the basilar membrane. , 1974, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  A. Cody,et al.  Acoustically induced hearing loss: Intracellular studies in the guinea pig cochlea , 1988, Hearing Research.

[25]  R. Hauser,et al.  The influence of systematic primary-tone level variation L2-L1 on the acoustic distortion product emission 2f1-f2 in normal human ears. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  D. Mountain,et al.  Changes in endolymphatic potential and crossed olivocochlear bundle stimulation alter cochlear mechanics. , 1980, Science.

[27]  M. Whitehead,et al.  Distortion-product emissions in rabbit: I. Altered susceptibility to repeated pure-tone exposures , 1993, Hearing Research.

[28]  P. Santi,et al.  Morphological alteration of the stria vascularis after administration of the diuretic bumetanide. , 1979, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[29]  Combination tone 2fl-fh in microphonic potentials. , 1969, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  B. Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Altered susceptibility of 2f 1—f 2 acoustic-distortion products to the effects of repeated noise exposure in rabbits , 1991, Hearing Research.

[31]  J. H. Patterson,et al.  The quantitative relation between sensory cell loss and hearing thresholds , 1989, Hearing Research.

[32]  B L Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Acoustic distortion products in humans: systematic changes in amplitudes as a function of f2/f1 ratio. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  W Melnick,et al.  Human temporary threshold shift (TTS) and damage risk. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  G. Rebillard,et al.  Cochlear origin of 2ƒ1−ƒ2 distortion products assessed by using 2 types of mutant mice , 1991, Hearing Research.

[35]  M B Sachs,et al.  Recovery from sound exposure in auditory-nerve fibers. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  David T. Kemp,et al.  Suppressibility of the 2 f 1- f 2 stimulated acoustic emissions in gerbil and man , 1984, Hearing Research.

[37]  D. O. Kim,et al.  Otoacoustic emissions in normal and hearing‐impaired children and normal adults , 1991, The Laryngoscope.

[38]  J. Allen,et al.  Characterization of Cubic Intermodulation Distortion Products in the Cat External Auditory Meatus , 1986 .

[39]  Glen K. Martin,et al.  Distortion Product Emissions in Humans , 1990, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[40]  G. K. Martin,et al.  Acoustic distortion products in rabbit ear canal. II. Sites of origin revealed by suppression contours and pure-tone exposures , 1987, Hearing Research.

[41]  A. M. Brown,et al.  The behavior of the acoustic distortion product, 2f1-f2, from the human ear and its relation to auditory sensitivity. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[42]  B. Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Temporary hearing loss from exposure to moderately intense tones in rhesus monkeys. , 1981, American journal of otolaryngology.

[43]  D. O. Kim,et al.  Efferent neural control of cochlear mechanics? Olivocochlear bundle stimulation affects cochlear biomechanical nonlinearity , 1982, Hearing Research.