Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(03): 137-143
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718705
Research Article

The Role of the Medial Olivocochlear Reflex in Acceptable Noise Level in Adults

Abdullah M. Jamos
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
Blair Hosier
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
Shelby Davis
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
Thomas C. Franklin
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The acceptable noise level (ANL) is a measurement used to quantify how much noise a person is willing to accept while listening to speech. ANL has been used to predict success with hearing aid use. However, physiological correlates of the ANL are poorly understood. One potential physiological correlate is the medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR), which decreases the output of the cochlea and is thereby expected to increase noise tolerance.

Purpose This study investigates the relationship between contralateral activation of the MOCR and tolerance of background noise.

Research Design This study recruited 22 young adult participants with normal hearing. ANL was measured using the Arizona Travelogue recording under headphones presented at the most comfortable level (MCL) with and without multitalker babble noise. The MOCR strength was evaluated in all participants by measuring the cochlear microphonic (CM) with and without 40 dB sound pressure level contralateral broadband noise (CBBN).

Data Analysis The CM observed in response to a 500-Hz tone was measured with and without CBBN, and changes in response to fast Fourier transform amplitude at 500 Hz were used as an indicator of the MOCR effect. The ANL was calculated by subtracting the maximum acceptable background noise level from the MCL. Participants were divided into two groups based on their ANL: low-ANL (ANL < 7 dB) and moderate-ANL (ANL ≥ 7 dB). An independent samples t-test was used to compare CM enhancement between low-ANL and moderate-ANL groups. Additionally, Pearson's correlation was used to investigate the relationship between the ANL and the MOCR effect on the CM.

Results The results indicated that presentation of CBBN increased the CM amplitude, consistent with eliciting the MOCR. Participants in the low-ANL group had significantly larger CM enhancement than moderate-ANL participants. The results further revealed a significant correlation between the ANL and the MOCR effect on the CM.

Conclusion This study suggests that a stronger MOCR, as assessed using CM enhancement, is associated with greater noise tolerance. This research provides a possible objective measure to predict background tolerance in patients and adds to our understanding about the MOCR function in humans.

Keywords

efferent system - medial olivocochlear reflex - acceptable noise level - cochlear microphonic - electrocochleography

Note

Data were presented at the Midwest Auditory Research Conference in July 2019–podium presentation.




Publication History

Received: 18 February 2020

Accepted: 28 July 2020

Article published online:
01 June 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (03) 679-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nabelek AK, Tampas JW, Burchfield SB. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47 (05) 1001-1011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ho HC, Wu YH, Hsiao SH, Zhang X. Acceptable noise level (ANL) and real-world hearing-aid success in Taiwanese listeners. Int J Audiol 2013; 52: 762-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Harkrider AW, Tampas JW. Differences in responses from the cochleae and central nervous systems of females with low versus high acceptable noise levels. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (09) 667-676
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tampas JW, Harkrider AW. Auditory evoked potentials in females with high and low acceptance of background noise when listening to speech. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 119 (03) 1548-1561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Franklin Jr CA, Thelin JW, Nabelek AK, Burchfield SB. The effect of speech presentation level on acceptance of background noise in listeners with normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (02) 141-146
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rogers DS, Harkrider AW, Burchfield SB, Nabelek AK. The influence of listener’s gender on the acceptance of background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14: 372-382
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nabelek AK, Freyaldenhoven MC, Tampas JW, Burchfiel SB, Muenchen RA. Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (09) 626-639
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harkrider AW, Smith SB. Acceptable noise level, phoneme recognition in noise, and measures of auditory efferent activity. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (08) 530-545
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Giraud AL, Garnier S, Micheyl C, Lina G, Chays A, Chéry-Croze S. Auditory efferents involved in speech-in-noise intelligibility. Neuroreport 1997; 8 (07) 1779-1783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Guinan Jr JJ. Olivocochlear efferents: anatomy, physiology, function, and the measurement of efferent effects in humans. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (06) 589-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Guinan Jr JJ. Olivocochlear efferents: their action, effects, measurement and uses, and the impact of the new conception of cochlear mechanical responses. Hear Res 2018; 362: 38-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dallos P, Wu X, Cheatham MA. et al. Prestin-based outer hair cell motility is necessary for mammalian cochlear amplification. Neuron 2008; 58 (03) 333-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kooknor V, Shetty H. Relationship between behavioral measure of ANL and its physiological mechanism in the normal hearing participant. Indian J Otol 2015; 21: 92-97
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Keefe DH, Fitzpatrick D, Liu YW, Sanford CA, Gorga MP. Wideband acoustic-reflex test in a test battery to predict middle-ear dysfunction. Hear Res 2010; 263 (1-2): 52-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McFadden D, Pasanen EG, Maloney MM, Leshikar EM, Pho MH. Correlations between otoacoustic emissions and performance in common psychoacoustical tasks. J Acoust Soc Am 2018; 143 (04) 2355-2367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fex J. Augmentation of cochlear microphomic by stimulation of efferent fibers to the cochlea. Acta Otolaryngol 1959; 50: 540-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jamos AM, Kaf WA, Chertoff ME, Ferraro JA. Human medial olivocochlear reflex: contralateral activation effect on low and high frequency cochlear response. Hear Res 2020; 389: 107925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chertoff ME, Amani-Taleshi D, Guo Y, Burkard R. The influence of inner hair cell loss on the instantaneous frequency of the cochlear microphonic. Hear Res 2002; 174 (1-2): 93-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dallos P, He DZZ, Lin X, Sziklai I, Mehta S, Evans BN. Acetylcholine, outer hair cell electromotility, and the cochlear amplifier. J Neurosci 1997; 17 (06) 2212-2226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gisselsson L, Orebro O. Effect on microphonics of acetylcholine injected into the endolymphatic space. Acta Otolaryngol 1960; 51: 636-638
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Murugasu E, Russell IJ. The effect of efferent stimulation on basilar membrane displacement in the basal turn of the guinea pig cochlea. J Neurosci 1996; 16 (01) 325-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ferraro JA, Durrant JD. Electrocochleography in the evaluation of patients with Ménière's disease/endolymphatic hydrops. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (01) 45-68
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Khalfa S, Collet L. Functional asymmetry of medial olivocochlear system in humans. Towards a peripheral auditory lateralization. Neuroreport 1996; 7 (05) 993-996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Margolis RH. Detection of hearing impairment with the acoustic stapedius reflex. Ear Hear 1993; 14 (01) 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Evans BN, Dallos P. Stereocilia displacement induced somatic motility of cochlear outer hair cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993; 90 (18) 8347-8351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Verpy E, Weil D, Leibovici M. et al. Stereocilin-deficient mice reveal the origin of cochlear waveform distortions. Nature 2008; 456 (7219): 255-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Santarelli R, Scimemi P, Dal Monte E, Arslan E. Cochlear microphonic potential recorded by transtympanic electrocochleography in normally-hearing and hearing-impaired ears. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2006; 26 (02) 78-95
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Withnell RH. Brief report: the cochlear microphonic as an indication of outer hair cell function. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (01) 75-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar