Frequency-Following Response (FFR) in Military Pilots

Abstract

Introduction Good hearing in pilots, including central auditory skills, is critical for flight safety and the prevention of aircraft accidents. Pure tone audiometry alone may not be enough to assess hearing in the members of this population who, in addition to high noise levels, routinely face speech recognition tasks in non-ideal conditions.

Objective To characterize the frequency-following response (FFR) of a group of military pilots compared with a control group.

Methods Twenty military pilots in the Study Group and 20 non-pilot military personnel, not exposed to noise in their work, in the Control Group, all with normal hearing, aged between 30 and 40 years old, completed a questionnaire to assess their hearing habits, and their FFRs were measured with a /da/ syllable (duration 40 milliseconds, speed 10.9/s), at 80 dB NA in the right ear. All procedures were approved by the ethical committee of the institution. Statistical analysis was performed using the t-Student or Mann-Whitney tests for quantitative variables, and the Fisher or chi-squared tests for qualitative variables, and a value of p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results There was no significant difference between the groups regarding auditory habits. In the FFR, wave amplitudes A (p = 0.01) and C (p = 0.04) were significantly lower in the Study Group.

Conclusion Working as a military pilot can be a crucial factor in determining an individual's typical FFR pattern, demonstrated in the present study by statistically significant reductions in the amplitudes of the A and C waves.

Keywords

hearing - electrophysiology - cochlear nerve - brainstem auditory evoked potentials - speech perception

Publication History

Received: 04 November 2019

Accepted: 05 August 2020

Article published online:
08 December 2020

• References

• 1 Brasil. Agencia Nacional de Aviação Civil. Regulamento Brasileiro da Aviação Civil - RBAC n° 67. Resolução n° 211, de 7 de dezembro de 2011 [Emenda 00], Resolução n° 420, de 21 de maio de 2017 [Emenda 01]. Disponível em: Acessed on 05/15/2019 http://www.anac.gov.br/assuntos/legislacao/legislacao-1/boletim-de-pessoal/2017/17s1/anexo-ii-rbac-no-67-emenda-no-01/view
• 2 Brasil. Ministério da Defesa. Instrução do Comando da Aeronáutica - ICA 160–1, 2003
• 3 Brasil. Ministério da Defesa. Instrução do Comando da Aeronáutica - ICA 160–6, 2013
• 4 Kuronen P, Toppila E, Starck J, Pa A Kko Nen R, Sorri MJ. Modelling the risk of noise-induced hearing loss among military pilots. Int J Audiol 2004; 43: 79-84
• 5 Tobias JV. Binaural processing of speech in light aircraft. Technical Report n° FAA-AM-72–31. 1972. Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration; 1-6
• 6 Lahtinen TM, Huttunen KH, Kuronen PO, Sorri MJ, Leino TK. Radio speech communication problems reported in a survey of military pilots. Aviat Space Environ Med 2010; 81 (12) 1123-1127
• 7 Matschke RG. [Communication and noise. Speech intelligibility of airplane pilots with and without active noise compensation]. HNO 1994; 42 (08) 499-504
• 8 Yankaskas K. Prelude: noise-induced tinnitus and hearing loss in the military. Hear Res 2013; 295: 3-8
• 9 Wagstaff AS, Woxen OJ. Double hearing protection and Speech Intelligibility -Room for Improvement, RTO MP-19. In: Organização do Tratado do Atlântico Norte (RTO Meeting Proceedings 19): Current Aeromedical Issues in Rotary Wing Operation. 1998;MP-19, 33–31–33–35
• 10 Mozo BT, Gordon E, Murphy BA. An insert hearing protector with voice communications capability RTO. In: Organização do Tratado do Atlântico Norte (RTO Meeting Proceedings 19): Current Aeromedical Issues in Rotary Wing Operation. 1998; MP-19, 34–31–34–34
• 11 Falcão TP, Luiz RR, Schütz GE, Mello MGS, Câmara VM. Perfil audiométrico segundo exposição de pilotos civis ao ruído. Rev Saude Publica 2014; 48: 790-796
• 12 Santos CCS, Juchem LS, Rossi AG. Processamento auditivo de militares expostos a ruído ocupacional. Rev CEFAC 2008; 10: 92-103
• 13 Kujala T, Shtyrov Y, Winkler I. et al. Long-term exposure to noise impairs cortical sound processing and attention control. Psychophysiology 2004; 41 (06) 875-881
• 14 Eggermont JJ. Effects of long-term non-traumatic noise exposure on the adult central auditory system. Hearing problems without hearing loss. Hear Res 2017; 352: 12-22
• 15 Le Prell CG, Brungart DS. Speech-in-Noise Tests and Supra-threshold Auditory Evoked Potentials as Metrics for Noise Damage and Clinical Trial Outcome Measures. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (08) e295-e302
• 16 Hope AJ, Luxon LM, Bamiou DE. Effects of chronic noise exposure on speech-in-noise perception in the presence of normal audiometry. J Laryngol Otol 2013; 127 (03) 233-238
• 17 Skoe E, Krizman J, Anderson S, Kraus N. Stability and plasticity of auditory brainstem function across the lifespan. Cereb Cortex 2015; 25 (06) 1415-1426
• 18 Kraus N, Anderson S, White-Schwoch T. The Frequency-Following Response: a window into human communication. In: Kraus N, Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Fay RR, Popper AN. eds. The Frequency-Following Response: A Window into Human Communication. Springer; 2017: 1-15
• 19 Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (03) 302-324
• 20 White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. The Janus face of auditory learning. How life in sound shapes everyday communication. In: Kraus N. eds. The Frequency-Following Response: A Window into Human Communication. Springer; 2017: 121-158
• 21 Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N. The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology 2010; 47 (02) 236-246
• 22 Wible B, Nicol T, Kraus N. Atypical brainstem representation of onset and formant structure of speech sounds in children with language-based learning problems. Biol Psychol 2004; 67 (03) 299-317
• 23 Krizman J, Skoe E, Kraus N. Sex differences in auditory subcortical function. Clin Neurophysiol 2012; 123 (03) 590-597
• 24 Rocha-Muniz CN, Filippini R, Neves-Lobo IF. et al. O Potencial Evocado Auditivo com estímulo de fala pode ser uma ferramenta útil na prática clínica?. CoDAS 2016; 28: 77-80
• 25 Fillipini R, Schochat E. Potenciais evocados auditivos de tronco encefálico com estímulo de fala no transtorno do processamento auditivo. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2009; 75: 449-455
• 26 Smith SB, Krizman J, Liu C, White-Schwoch T, Nicol T, Kraus N. Investigating peripheral sources of speech-in-noise variability in listeners with normal audiograms. Hear Res 2019; 371: 66-74
• 27 Silman S, Silverman CA. Basic audiologic testing. In: Silman S, Silverman CA. eds. Auditory diagnosis: principles and applications. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1997: 44-52
• 28 Paradise JL, Smith CG, Bluestone CD. Tympanometric detection of middle ear effusion in infants and young children. Pediatrics 1976; 58 (02) 198-210
• 29 Gorga MP, Neely ST, Bergman BM. et al. A comparison of transient-evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94 (05) 2639-2648
• 30 Kampel-Furman L, Joachims Z, Bar-Cohen H. et al. Hearing threshold shifts among military pilots of the Israeli Air Force. J R Army Med Corps 2018; 164 (01) 46-51
• 31 Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds predicts self-reported speech-in-noise performance. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56 (01) 31-43
• 32 Russo N, Nicol T, Musacchia G, Kraus N. Brainstem responses to speech syllables. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115 (09) 2021-2030