Brainstem Encoding of Aided Speech in Hearing Aid Users with Cochlear Dead Region(s)

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Neural encoding of speech begins with the analysis of the signal as a whole broken down into its sinusoidal components in the cochlea, which has to be conserved up to the higher auditory centers. Some of these components target the dead regions of the cochlea causing little or no excitation. Measuring aided speech-evoked auditory brainstem response elicited by speech stimuli with different spectral maxima can give insight into the brainstem encoding of aided speech with spectral maxima at these dead regions.

Objective This research aims to study the impact of dead regions of the cochlea on speech processing at the brainstem level after a long period of hearing aid use.

Methods This study comprised 30 ears without dead regions and 46 ears with dead regions at low, mid, or high frequencies. For all ears, we measured the aided speech-evoked auditory brainstem response using speech stimuli of low, mid, and high spectral maxima.

Results Aided speech-evoked auditory brainstem response was producible in all subjects. Responses evoked by stimuli with spectral maxima at dead regions had longer latencies and smaller amplitudes when compared with the control group or the responses of other stimuli.

Conclusion The presence of cochlear dead regions affects brainstem encoding of speech with spectral maxima perpendicular to these regions. Brainstem neuroplasticity and the extrinsic redundancy of speech can minimize the impact of dead regions in chronic hearing aid users.

• References

• 1 Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR. The role of frequency selectivity in the perception of loudness, pitch and time. In: Moore BCJ, ed. Frequency Selectivity and Hearing. London: Academic Press; 1986
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 2 Moore BCJ. Dead regions in the cochlea: diagnosis, perceptual consequences, and implications for the fitting of hearing AIDS. Trends Amplif 2001; 5 (1) 1-34
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 3 Moore BCJ. Dead regions in the cochlea: conceptual foundations, diagnosis, and clinical applications. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (2) 98-116
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Moore B, Carlyon R. Perception of pitch by people with cochlear hearing loss and by cochlear implant users. In: Plack CJ, Oxenham AJ, Fay RR, , et al, eds. Pitch Perception. New York: Springer; 2005: 234-277
  Google Scholar
• 5 McDermott HJ, Lech M, Kornblum MS, Irvine DR. Loudness perception and frequency discrimination in subjects with steeply sloping hearing loss: possible correlates of neural plasticity. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104 (4) 2314-2325
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 6 Huss M, Moore BC. Dead regions and noisiness of pure tones. Int J Audiol 2005; 44 (10) 599-611
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 7 Moore BC, Vinay SN. Enhanced discrimination of low-frequency sounds for subjects with high-frequency dead regions. Brain 2009; 132 (Pt 2): 524-536
  Google Scholar
• 8 Moore BC, Huss M, Vickers DA, Glasberg BR, Alcántara JI. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol 2000; 34 (4) 205-224
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 9 Russo N, Nicol T, Musacchia G, Kraus N. Brainstem responses to speech syllables. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115 (9) 2021-2030
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 10 Sinha SK, Basavaraj V. Speech evoked auditory brainstem responses: a new tool to study brainstem encoding of speech sounds. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 62 (4) 395-399
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 11 Bellier L, Veuillet E, Vesson JF, Bouchet P, Caclin A, Thai-Van H. Speech Auditory Brainstem Response through hearing aid stimulation. Hear Res 2015; 325: 49-54
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 12 Russo N, Nicol T, Trommer B, Zecker S, Kraus N. Brainstem transcription of speech is disrupted in children with autism spectrum disorders. Dev Sci 2009; 12 (4) 557-567
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 13 Stevens KN, Blumstein SE. Invariant cues for place of articulation in stop consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1978; 64 (5) 1358-1368
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 14 Kewley-Port D. Time-varying features as correlates of place of articulation in stop consonants. J Acoust Soc Am 1983; 73 (1) 322-335
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 15 Steinschneider M, Fishman YI. Enhanced physiologic discriminability of stop consonants with prolonged formant transitions in awake monkeys based on the tonotopic organization of primary auditory cortex. Hear Res 2011; 271 (1–2) 103-114
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 16 Steinschneider M, Nourski KV, Fishman YI. Representation of speech in human auditory cortex: is it special?. Hear Res 2013; 305: 57-73
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 17 ANSI (American National Standard Institute). American National Standard specification for audiometers (ANSI S3.6–1996). New York; 1996
  Google Scholar
• 18 Johnson KL, Nicol T, Zecker SG, Bradlow AR, Skoe E, Kraus N. Brainstem encoding of voiced consonant—vowel stop syllables. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119 (11) 2623-2635
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 19 Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (3) 302-324
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 20 Anderson S, Kraus N. The Potential Role of the cABR in Assessment and Management of Hearing Impairment. Int J Otolaryngol 2013; 2013: 604729
  Google Scholar
• 21 Halpin C, Thornton A, Hasso M. Low-frequency sensorineural loss: clinical evaluation and implications for hearing aid fitting. Ear Hear 1994; 15 (1) 71-81
  Google Scholar
• 22 Moore BCJ, Tyler LK, Marslen-Wilsen WD. The Perception of Speech: from Sound to Meaning (revised and updated). USA: Oxford University Press; 2009
  Google Scholar
• 23 Moore BCJ. Auditory Processing of Temporal Fine Structure: Effects of Age and Hearing Loss. Singapore: World Scientific; 2014
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 24 Thornton AR, Abbas PJ, Abbas PJ. Low-frequency hearing loss: perception of filtered speech, psychophysical tuning curves, and masking. J Acoust Soc Am 1980; 67 (2) 638-643
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 25 Van Tasell DJ, Turner CW. Speech recognition in a special case of low-frequency hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 75 (4) 1207-1212
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 26 Vinay BT, Baer T, Moore BC. Speech recognition in noise as a function of highpass-filter cutoff frequency for people with and without low-frequency cochlear dead regions. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 123 (2) 606-609
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 27 Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI. The use of psychophysical tuning curves to explore dead regions in the cochlea. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (4) 268-278
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 28 Vickers DA, Moore BCJ, Baer T. Effects of low-pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in quiet for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 2001; 110 (2) 1164-1175
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Baer T, Moore BCJ, Kluk K. Effects of low pass filtering on the intelligibility of speech in noise for people with and without dead regions at high frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 112 (3 Pt 1): 1133-1144
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar