PDF herunterladen
Semin Hear 2013; 34(04): 270-277
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1356639
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

What Brainstem Recordings May or May Not Be Able to Tell Us about Hearing Aid–Amplified Signals

Christopher G. Clinard
1   James Madison University, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Harrisonburg, Virginia
,
Kelly L. Tremblay
2   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
15. Oktober 2013 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Performance variability among people who wear hearing aids presents a challenge for clinicians. Although some clients appear to make use of amplified signals with little effort, other clients report frustration and may reject their hearing aids altogether. Some of the explanations underlying performance variability likely result from a poorly fitted device; others might result from reasons related to how the amplified signal is being represented in the central auditory system. We believe that perception is dependent on the neural detection, representation, and integration of the amplified speech and noise. For this reason it is important to understand how amplification modifies the acoustic content of a signal as well as the neural representation of the amplified sound. It is therefore necessary to examine the interaction between hearing aid–processed acoustic input and the neural networks that are activated. Here we focus on the role of brainstem encoding to determine if auditory brainstem responses might provide information to help explain why some people are able to make better use of amplified sound than others. More specifically, we review the literature to determine if brainstem measures might someday be used to guide clinicians when fitting a hearing aid.

Keywords

Electrophysiology - hearing aids - amplification - brainstem - frequency following response
 

  • References

  • 1 Tremblay KL, Billings CJ, Friesen LM, Souza PE. Neural representation of amplified speech sounds. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (2) 93-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tremblay KL, Scollie S, Abrams H, Sullivan J, McMahon C. Hearing aids and the brain: what's the connection?. Int J Otolaryngol 2013; ;In Press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tremblay KL, , and Miller C. How neuroscience relates to hearing aid amplification. Int J Otolaryngol 2013; ; In press
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ponton CW, Vasama JP, Tremblay K, Khosla D, Kwong B, Don M. Plasticity in the adult human central auditory system: evidence from late-onset profound unilateral deafness. Hear Res 2001; 154 (1-2) 32-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear 2010; 31: 302-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Beauchaine KA, Gorga MP, Reiland JK, Larson LL. Application of ABRs to the hearing-aid selection process: preliminary data. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29 (1) 120-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Davidson SA, Wall LG, Goodman CM. Preliminary studies on the use of an ABR amplitude projection procedure for hearing aid selection. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (5) 332-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hecox KE. Role of auditory brain stem response in the selection of hearing aids. Ear Hear 1983; 4 (1) 51-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kiessling J. Hearing aid selection by brainstem audiometry. Scand Audiol 1982; 11 (4) 269-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kileny P. Auditory brainstem responses as indicators of hearing aid performance. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1982; 91 (1 Pt 1) 61-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gorga MP, Beauchaine KA, Reiland JK. Comparison of onset and steady-state responses of hearing aids: implications for use of the auditory brainstem response in the selection of hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res 1987; 30 (1) 130-136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kates JM. Principles of digital dynamic-range compression. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (2) 45-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stone MA, Moore BC. Tolerable hearing aid delays. I. Estimation of limits imposed by the auditory path alone using simulated hearing losses. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (3) 182-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hall III JW. Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Worden FG, Marsh JT. Frequency-following (microphonic-like) neural responses evoked by sound. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1968; 25 (1) 42-52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Johnson KL, Nicol TG, Kraus N. Brain stem response to speech: a biological marker of auditory processing. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (5) 424-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 King C, Warrier CM, Hayes E, Kraus N. Deficits in auditory brainstem pathway encoding of speech sounds in children with learning problems. Neurosci Lett 2002; 319 (2) 111-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Warrier CM, Johnson KL, Hayes EA, Nicol T, Kraus N. Learning impaired children exhibit timing deficits and training-related improvements in auditory cortical responses to speech in noise. Exp Brain Res 2004; 157 (4) 431-441
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Parbery-Clark A, Skoe E, Kraus N. Musical experience limits the degradative effects of background noise on the neural processing of sound. J Neurosci 2009; 29 (45) 14100-14107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Parbery-Clark A, Strait DL, Kraus N. Context-dependent encoding in the auditory brainstem subserves enhanced speech-in-noise perception in musicians. Neuropsychologia 2011; 49 (12) 3338-3345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Parbery-Clark A, Tierney A, Strait DL, Kraus N. Musicians have fine-tuned neural distinction of speech syllables. Neuroscience 2012; 219: 111-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Clinard CG, Tremblay K. Aging degrades the neural encoding of simple and complex sounds in the human brainstem. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (7) 590-599
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Parbery-Clark A, Anderson S, Hittner E, Kraus N. Musical experience offsets age-related delays in neural timing. Neurobiol Aging 2012; 33 (7) e1-e4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Smith JC, Marsh JT, Brown WS. Far-field recorded frequency-following responses: evidence for the locus of brainstem sources. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1975; 39 (5) 465-472
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Clinard CG, Tremblay K, Krishnan A. Aging alters the perception and physiological representation of frequency: evidence from human frequency-following response recordings. Hear Res 2010; 264 (1–2) 48-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Dobie RA, Wilson MJ. Analysis of auditory evoked potentials by magnitude-squared coherence. Ear Hear 1989; 10 (1) 2-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dobie RA, Wilson MJ. A comparison of t test, F test, and coherence methods of detecting steady-state auditory-evoked potentials, distortion-product otoacoustic emissions, or other sinusoids. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 100 (4 Pt 1) 2236-2246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Galbraith GC, Brown WS. Cross-correlation and latency compensation analysis of click-evoked and frequency-following brain-stem responses in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990; 77 (4) 295-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Russo N, Nicol T, Musacchia G, Kraus N. Brainstem responses to speech syllables. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115 (9) 2021-2030
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Krishnan A, Xu Y, Gandour JT, Cariani PA. Human frequency-following response: representation of pitch contours in Chinese tones. Hear Res 2004; 189 (1-2) 1-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Davis H, Hirsh SK. The audiometric utility of brain stem responses to low-frequency sounds. Audiology 1976; 15 (3) 181-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Moushegian G, Rupert AL, Stillman RD. Laboratory note. Scalp-recorded early responses in man to frequencies in the speech range. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1973; 35 (6) 665-667
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sohmer H, Pratt H. Identification and separation of acoustic frequency following responses (FFRS) in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1977; 42 (4) 493-500
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Sohmer H, Pratt H, Kinarti R. Sources of frequency following responses (FFR) in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1977; 42 (5) 656-664
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Krishnan A, Plack CJ. Neural encoding in the human brainstem relevant to the pitch of complex tones. Hear Res 2011; 275 (1-2) 110-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Smalt CJ, Krishnan A, Bidelman GM, Ananthakrishnan S, Gandour JT. Distortion products and their influence on representation of pitch-relevant information in the human brainstem for unresolved harmonic complex tones. Hear Res 2012; 292 (1-2) 26-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Basu M, Krishnan A, Weber-Fox C. Brainstem correlates of temporal auditory processing in children with specific language impairment. Dev Sci 2010; 13 (1) 77-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Krishnan A, Parkinson J. Human frequency-following response: representation of tonal sweeps. Audiol Neurootol 2000; 5 (6) 312-321
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Krishnan A. Human frequency-following responses to two-tone approximations of steady-state vowels. Audiol Neurootol 1999; 4 (2) 95-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Krishnan A. Human frequency-following responses: representation of steady-state synthetic vowels. Hear Res 2002; 166 (1–2) 192-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hornickel J, Skoe E, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Subcortical differentiation of stop consonants relates to reading and speech-in-noise perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009; 106 (31) 13022-13027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Krishnan A, Xu Y, Gandour JT, Cariani PA. Encoding of pitch in the human brainstem is sensitive to language experience. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2005; 25 (1) 161-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Plyler PN, Ananthanarayan AK. Human frequency-following responses: representation of second formant transitions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (10) 523-533
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Wong PC, Skoe E, Russo NM, Dees T, Kraus N. Musical experience shapes human brainstem encoding of linguistic pitch patterns. Nat Neurosci 2007; 10 (4) 420-422
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Aiken SJ, Picton TW. Envelope following responses to natural vowels. Audiol Neurootol 2006; 11 (4) 213-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Aiken SJ, Picton TW. Envelope and spectral frequency-following responses to vowel sounds. Hear Res 2008; 245 (1–2) 35-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Swaminathan J, Krishnan A, Gandour JT, Xu Y. Applications of static and dynamic iterated rippled noise to evaluate pitch encoding in the human auditory brainstem. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2008; 55 (1) 281-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Billings CJ, Papesh MA, Penman TM, Baltzell LS, Gallun FJ. Clinical use of aided cortical auditory evoked potentials as a measure of physiological detection or physiological discrimination. Int J Otolaryngol 2012; 2012: 365752
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Marynewich S, Jenstad L, Stapells D. Slow cortical potentials and amplification-part I: n1-p2 measures. Int J Otolaryngol 2012; 2012: 921513
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Easwar V, Purcell DW, Scollie SD. Electroacoustic comparison of hearing aid output of phonemes in running speech versus isolation: implications for aided cortical auditory evoked potentials testing. Int J Otolaryngol 2012; 2012: 518202
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Martinez AS, Eisenberg LS, Boothroyd A. The acoustic change complex in young children with hearing loss: a preliminary study. Semin Hearing. 2013; 34 (4) 278-287
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Krishnan A. Frequency-following response. In: Burkard RF, Eggermont JJ, Don M, , eds. Auditory Evoked Potentials: Basic Principles and Clinical Application. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007: 313-333
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Stapells DK. Threshold estimation by the tone-evoked auditory brainstem response: a literature meta-analysis. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 2000; 24: 74-83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Billings C. Uses and limitations of electrophysiology with hearing aids. Semin Hear 2013; 34 (4) 257-269
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Billings CJ, Tremblay KL, Stecker GC, Tolin WM. Human evoked cortical activity to signal-to-noise ratio and absolute signal level. Hear Res 2009; 254 (1–2) 15-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Anderson S, Kraus N. The potential role of the cABR in assessment and management of hearing impairment. Int J Otolaryngol 2013; 2013: 604-729
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Willott JF. Anatomic and physiologic aging: a behavioral neuroscience perspective. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7 (3) 141-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Drehobl S, Kraus N. Effects of hearing loss on the subcortical representation of speech cues. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 133 (5) 3030-3038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Picton TW, Durieux-Smith A, Champagne SC , et al. Objective evaluation of aided thresholds using auditory steady-state responses. J Am Acad Audiol 1998; 9 (5) 315-331
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Herdman AT, Stapells DK. Auditory steady-state response thresholds of adults with sensorineural hearing impairments. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (5) 237-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Lins OG, Picton TW, Boucher BL , et al. Frequency-specific audiometry using steady-state responses. Ear Hear 1996; 17 (2) 81-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Harrison RV, Evans EF. Cochlear fibre responses in guinea pigs with well defined cochlear lesions. Scand Audiol Suppl 1979; 9 (9) 83-92
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Woolf NK, Ryan AF, Bone RC. Neural phase-locking properties in the absence of cochlear outer hair cells. Hear Res 1981; 4 (3–4) 335-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Henry KS, Heinz MG. Diminished temporal coding with sensorineural hearing loss emerges in background noise. Nat Neurosci 2012; 15 (10) 1362-1364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar