Effects of Age on Psychophysical Measures of Auditory Temporal Processing and Speech Reception at Low and High Levels

Overview

Journal Hear Res

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2020 Nov 30

PMID 33253994

Citations 9

Authors

Samuele Carcagno

Christopher J Plack

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Age-related cochlear synaptopathy (CS) has been shown to occur in rodents with minimal noise exposure, and has been hypothesized to play a crucial role in age-related hearing declines in humans. It is not known to what extent age-related CS occurs in humans, and how it affects the coding of supra-threshold sounds and speech in noise. Because in rodents CS affects mainly low- and medium-spontaneous rate (L/M-SR) auditory-nerve fibers with rate-level functions covering medium-high levels, it should lead to greater deficits in the processing of sounds at high than at low stimulus levels. In this cross-sectional study the performance of 102 listeners across the age range (34 young, 34 middle-aged, 34 older) was assessed in a set of psychophysical temporal processing and speech reception in noise tests at both low, and high stimulus levels. Mixed-effect multiple regression models were used to estimate the effects of age while partialing out effects of audiometric thresholds, lifetime noise exposure, cognitive abilities (assessed with additional tests), and musical experience. Age was independently associated with performance deficits on several tests. However, only for one out of 13 tests were age effects credibly larger at the high compared to the low stimulus level. Overall these results do not provide much evidence that age-related CS, to the extent to which it may occur in humans according to the rodent model of greater L/M-SR synaptic loss, has substantial effects on psychophysical measures of auditory temporal processing or on speech reception in noise.

Citing Articles

Cochlear synaptopathy and hidden hearing loss: a scoping review.

Colla M, Lunardelo P, Dias F Codas. 2023; 36(2):e20230032.

PMID: 37991055 PMC: 10715634. DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20232023032pt.

BPACE: A Bayesian, Patient-Centered Procedure for Matrix Speech Tests in Noise.

Schmid C, Wimmer W, Kompis M Trends Hear. 2023; 27:23312165231191382.

PMID: 37501653 PMC: 10388612. DOI: 10.1177/23312165231191382.

Noise Exposure in Palestinian Workers Without a Diagnosis of Hearing Impairment: Relations to Speech-Perception-in-Noise Difficulties, Tinnitus, and Hyperacusis.

Shehabi A, Prendergast G, Guest H, Plack C J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2023; 66(3):1085-1109.

PMID: 36802819 PMC: 10205103. DOI: 10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00461.

The Relative and Combined Effects of Noise Exposure and Aging on Auditory Peripheral Neural Deafferentation: A Narrative Review.

Shehabi A, Prendergast G, Plack C Front Aging Neurosci. 2022; 14:877588.

PMID: 35813954 PMC: 9260498. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.877588.

The Effect of Lifetime Noise Exposure and Aging on Speech-Perception-in-Noise Ability and Self-Reported Hearing Symptoms: An Online Study.

Shehabi A, Prendergast G, Guest H, Plack C Front Aging Neurosci. 2022; 14:890010.

PMID: 35711902 PMC: 9195834. DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.890010.

References

Sergeyenko Y, Lall K, Liberman M, Kujawa S . Age-related cochlear synaptopathy: an early-onset contributor to auditory functional decline. J Neurosci. 2013; 33(34):13686-94. PMC: 3755715. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1783-13.2013. View

Shen Y, Richards V . A maximum-likelihood procedure for estimating psychometric functions: thresholds, slopes, and lapses of attention. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 132(2):957-67. PMC: 3427362. DOI: 10.1121/1.4733540. View

Clinard C, Tremblay K, Krishnan A . Aging alters the perception and physiological representation of frequency: evidence from human frequency-following response recordings. Hear Res. 2009; 264(1-2):48-55. PMC: 2868068. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2009.11.010. View

Bones O, Hopkins K, Krishnan A, Plack C . Phase locked neural activity in the human brainstem predicts preference for musical consonance. Neuropsychologia. 2014; 58:23-32. PMC: 4040538. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.03.011. View

Kujawa S, Liberman M . Synaptopathy in the noise-exposed and aging cochlea: Primary neural degeneration in acquired sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res. 2015; 330(Pt B):191-9. PMC: 4567542. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.02.009. View

Furman A, Kujawa S, Liberman M . Noise-induced cochlear neuropathy is selective for fibers with low spontaneous rates. J Neurophysiol. 2013; 110(3):577-86. PMC: 3742994. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00164.2013. View

Plack C, Barker D, Prendergast G . Perceptual consequences of "hidden" hearing loss. Trends Hear. 2014; 18. PMC: 4227662. DOI: 10.1177/2331216514550621. View

Kohlrausch A . Comment on "Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91,2156-2164 (1992)]. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993; 93(3):1649-52. DOI: 10.1121/1.406826. View

Rossi-Katz J, Arehart K . Message and talker identification in older adults: effects of task, distinctiveness of the talkers' voices, and meaningfulness of the competing message. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008; 52(2):435-53. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0243). View

10.

Kuss M, Jakel F, Wichmann F . Bayesian inference for psychometric functions. J Vis. 2005; 5(5):478-92. DOI: 10.1167/5.5.8. View

11.

Schmiedt R, Mills J, Boettcher F . Age-related loss of activity of auditory-nerve fibers. J Neurophysiol. 1996; 76(4):2799-803. DOI: 10.1152/jn.1996.76.4.2799. View

12.

Bharadwaj H, Verhulst S, Shaheen L, Liberman M, Shinn-Cunningham B . Cochlear neuropathy and the coding of supra-threshold sound. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014; 8:26. PMC: 3930880. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00026. View

13.

Akeroyd M . Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol. 2008; 47 Suppl 2:S53-71. DOI: 10.1080/14992020802301142. View

14.

McMillan G, Cannon J . Bayesian Applications in Auditory Research. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019; 62(3):577-586. DOI: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-ASTM-18-0228. View

15.

Verhulst S, Jagadeesh A, Mauermann M, Ernst F . Individual Differences in Auditory Brainstem Response Wave Characteristics: Relations to Different Aspects of Peripheral Hearing Loss. Trends Hear. 2016; 20. PMC: 5117250. DOI: 10.1177/2331216516672186. View

16.

Brughera A, Dunai L, Hartmann W . Human interaural time difference thresholds for sine tones: the high-frequency limit. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013; 133(5):2839-55. PMC: 3663869. DOI: 10.1121/1.4795778. View

17.

Lin F, Thorpe R, Gordon-Salant S, Ferrucci L . Hearing loss prevalence and risk factors among older adults in the United States. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011; 66(5):582-90. PMC: 3074958. DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glr002. View

18.

Duncan J, Chylinski D, Mitchell D, Bhandari A . Complexity and compositionality in fluid intelligence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(20):5295-5299. PMC: 5441793. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1621147114. View

19.

McShefferty D, Whitmer W, Swan I, Akeroyd M . The effect of experience on the sensitivity and specificity of the whispered voice test: a diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ Open. 2013; 3(4). PMC: 3641455. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002394. View

20.

Fullgrabe C, Rosen S . On The (Un)importance of Working Memory in Speech-in-Noise Processing for Listeners with Normal Hearing Thresholds. Front Psychol. 2016; 7():1268. PMC: 5003928. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01268. View