Download PDF
Semin Hear 2018; 39(02): 172-209
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641743
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Effectiveness of Auditory Measures for Detecting Hidden Hearing Loss and/or Cochlear Synaptopathy: A Systematic Review

Christi M. Barbee
1   Hearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Jessica A. James
1   Hearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Jin Hyung Park
1   Hearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Emily M. Smith
1   Hearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Carole E. Johnson
1   Hearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Shari Clifton
1   Hearing Evaluation, Rehabilitation, and Outcomes Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Jeffrey L. Danhauer
2   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 June 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Standard audiometric evaluations are not sensitive enough to identify hidden hearing loss (HHL) and/or cochlear synaptopathy (CS). Patients with either of these conditions frequently present with difficulty understanding speech in noise or other complaints such as tinnitus. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify articles in peer-reviewed journals that assessed the sensitivity of audiologic measures for detecting HHL and/or CS, and which showed potential for use in a clinical test battery for these disorders. A reference librarian submitted specific boolean terminology to MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The authors used a consensus approach with specially designed score sheets for the selection of titles, abstracts, and then articles for inclusion in the systematic review and for quality assessment. Fifteen articles were included in the systematic review. Seven articles involved humans; seven involved animals, and one study used both humans and animals. Results showed that pure-tone audiometry to 20 kHz, otoacoustic emissions, electrocochleography, auditory brainstem response (ABR), electrophysiological tests, speech recognition in noise with and without temporal distortion, interviews, and self-report measures have been used to assess HHL and/or CS. For HHL, ultra-high-frequency audiometry may help identify persons with sensory hair cell loss that does not show up on standard audiograms. Promising nonbehavioral measures for CS included ABR wave I amplitude, the summating potential-to-action potential ratio, and speech recognition in noise with and without temporal distortion. Self-report questionnaires also may help identify auditory dysfunction in persons with normal hearing.

Keywords

hidden hearing loss - cochlear synaptopathy - King–Kopetzky syndrome - assessment
 

  • References

  • 1 Tremblay KL, Pinto A, Fischer ME. , et al. Self-reported hearing difficulties among adults with normal audiograms: the beaver dam offspring study. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (06) e290-e299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zhao F, Stephens D. A critical review of King-Kopetzky syndrome: hearing difficulties but normal hearing. Audiol Med 2007; 5 (02) 119-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hinchcliffe R, Coles RR, King PF. Occupational noise induced vestibular malfunction?. Br J Ind Med 1992; 49 (01) 63-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Saunders GH, Haggard MP. The clinical assessment of obscure auditory dysfunction--1. Auditory and psychological factors. Ear Hear 1989; 10 (03) 200-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Stephens S, Rendell RJ. Auditory disability with normal hearing. Quaderni de Audiologia 1998; 4: 233-238
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Schaette R, McAlpine D. Tinnitus with a normal audiogram: physiological evidence for hidden hearing loss and computational model. J Neurosci 2011; 31 (38) 13452-13457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 2009; 29 (45) 14077-14085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mulders WH, Robertson D. Hyperactivity in the auditory midbrain after acoustic trauma: dependence on cochlear activity. Neuroscience 2009; 164 (02) 733-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Finlayson PG, Kaltenbach JA. Alterations in the spontaneous discharge patterns of single units in the dorsal cochlear nucleus following intense sound exposure. Hear Res 2009; 256 (1–2): 104-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Maison SF, Usubuchi H, Liberman MC. Efferent feedback minimizes cochlear neuropathy from moderate noise exposure. J Neurosci 2013; 33 (13) 5542-5552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Fernandez KA, Jeffers PW, Lall K, Liberman MC, Kujawa SG. Aging after noise exposure: acceleration of cochlear synaptopathy in “recovered” ears. J Neurosci 2015; 35 (19) 7509-7520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Synaptopathy in the noise-exposed and aging cochlea: Primary neural degeneration in acquired sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res 2015; 330 (Pt B): 191-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sergeyenko Y, Lall K, Liberman MC, Kujawa SG. Age-related cochlear synaptopathy: an early-onset contributor to auditory functional decline. J Neurosci 2013; 33 (34) 13686-13694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Viana LM, O'Malley JT, Burgess BJ. , et al. Cochlear neuropathy in human presbycusis: Confocal analysis of hidden hearing loss in post-mortem tissue. Hear Res 2015; 327: 78-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Abdala C, Dhar S. Maturation and aging of the human cochlea: a view through the DPOAE looking glass. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2012; 13 (03) 403-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Liberman MC, Epstein MJ, Cleveland SS, Wang H, Maison SF. Toward a differential diagnosis of hidden hearing loss in humans. PLoS One 2016; 11 (09) e0162726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jensen JB, Lysaght AC, Liberman MC, Qvortrup K, Stankovic KM. Immediate and delayed cochlear neuropathy after noise exposure in pubescent mice. PLoS One 2015; 10 (05) e0125160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lobarinas E, Spankovich C, Le Prell CG. Evidence of “hidden hearing loss” following noise exposures that produce robust TTS and ABR wave-I amplitude reductions. Hear Res 2017; 349: 155-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mehraei G, Hickox AE, Bharadwaj HM. , et al. Auditory brainstem response latency in noise as a marker of cochlear synaptopathy. J Neurosci 2016; 36 (13) 3755-3764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Möhrle D, Ni K, Varakina K. , et al. Loss of auditory sensitivity from inner hair cell synaptopathy can be centrally compensated in the young but not old brain. Neurobiol Aging 2016; 44: 173-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Paquette ST, Gilels F, White PM. Noise exposure modulates cochlear inner hair cell ribbon volumes, correlating with changes in auditory measures in the FVB/nJ mouse. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 25056
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Song Q, Shen P, Li X. , et al. Coding deficits in hidden hearing loss induced by noise: the nature and impacts. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 25200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bramhall NF, Konrad-Martin D, McMillan GP, Griest SE. Auditory brainstem response altered in humans with noise exposure despite normal outer hair cell function. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (01) e1-e12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Guest H, Munro KJ, Prendergast G, Howe S, Plack CJ. Tinnitus with a normal audiogram: relation to noise exposure but no evidence for cochlear synaptopathy. Hear Res 2017; 344: 265-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 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: 11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mehraei G, Gallardo AP, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Dau T. Auditory brainstem response latency in forward masking, a marker of sensory deficits in listeners with normal hearing thresholds. Hear Res 2017; 346: 34-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Stuermer KJ, Beutner D, Foerst A, Hahn M, Lang-Roth R, Walger M. Electrocochleography in children with auditory synaptopathy/neuropathy: diagnostic findings and characteristic parameters. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 79 (02) 139-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Prendergast G, Guest H, Munro KJ. , et al. Effects of noise exposure on young adults with normal audiograms I: electrophysiology. Hear Res 2017; 344: 68-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Plack CJ, Léger A, Prendergast G, Kluk K, Guest H, Munro KJ. Toward a diagnostic test for hidden hearing loss. Trends Hear 2016; 20: 7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dobie RA, Clark WW. Exchange rates for intermittent and fluctuating occupational noise: a systematic review of studies of human permanent threshold shift. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (01) 86-96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mehrparvar AH, Mirmohammadi SJ, Davari MH. , et al. Conventional audiometry, extended high-frequency audiometry, and DPOAE for early diagnosis of NIHL. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2014; 16 (01) e9628
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Konrad-Martin DG, Gordon JS, Reavis KM, Wilmington DJ, Helt WJ, Fausti SA. Audiological monitoring of patients receiving ototoxic drugs. Perspec Hear Hear Dis Diagn 2005; 9 (01) 17-22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Henry JA, Jastreboff MM, Jastreboff PJ, Schechter MA, Fausti SA. Assessment of patients for treatment with tinnitus retraining therapy. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13 (10) 523-544
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kemp DT, Ryan S, Bray P. A guide to the effective use of otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (02) 93-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Desai A, Reed D, Cheyne A, Richards S, Prasher D. Absence of otoacoustic emissions in subjects with normal audiometric thresholds implies exposure to noise. Noise Health 1999; 1 (02) 58-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Prasher D, Sułkowski W. The role of otoacoustic emissions in screening and evaluation of noise damage. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 1999; 12 (02) 183-192
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Attias J, Horovitz G, El-Hatib N, Nageris B. Detection and clinical diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss by otoacoustic emissions. Noise Health 2001; 3 (12) 19-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Uchida Y, Ando F, Shimokata H, Sugiura S, Ueda H, Nakashima T. The effects of aging on distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in adults with normal hearing. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (02) 176-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Poling GL, Siegel JH, Lee J, Lee J, Dhar S. Characteristics of the 2f(1)-f(2) distortion product otoacoustic emission in a normal hearing population. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 135 (01) 287-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Hood LJ. A review of objective methods of evaluating auditory neural pathways. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (11) 1745-1748
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Krause CM, Boman PA, Sillanmäki L, Varho T, Holopainen IE. Brain oscillatory EEG event-related desynchronization (ERD) and -sychronization (ERS) responses during an auditory memory task are altered in children with epilepsy. Seizure 2008; 17 (01) 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Purcell DW, John SM, Schneider BA, Picton TW. Human temporal auditory acuity as assessed by envelope following responses. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116 (06) 3581-3593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Venail F, Artaud JP, Blanchet C, Uziel A, Mondain M. Refining the audiological assessment in children using narrow-band CE-Chirp-evoked auditory steady state responses. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (02) 106-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Cone-Wesson B, Dowell RC, Tomlin D, Rance G, Ming WJ. The auditory steady-state response: comparisons with the auditory brainstem response. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13 (04) 173-187 , quiz 225–226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (06) 430-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Newman CW, Jacobson GP, Spitzer JB. Development of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 122 (02) 143-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Poulsen T. Equivalent threshold sound pressure levels (ETSPL) for Interacoustics DD 45 supra-aural audiometric earphones. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (11) 850-855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Zhou X, Jen PHS, Seburn KL, Frankel WN, Zheng QY. Auditory brainstem responses in 10 inbred strains of mice. Brain Res 2006; 1091 (01) 16-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Bauch CD, Olsen WO. Comparison of ABR amplitudes with TIPtrode and mastoid electrodes. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (06) 463-467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar