Download PDF
Semin Hear 2022; 43(03): 197-222
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756164
Review Article

Examining the Profile of Noise-Induced Cochlear Synaptopathy Using iPhone Health App Data and Cochlear and Brainstem Electrophysiological Responses to Fast Clicks Rates

Wafaa A. Kaf
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
Madison Turntine
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
Abdullah Jamos
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
Jacek Smurzynski
2   Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations Funding/Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all participants for their voluntary participation in this study. We also acknowledge the tremendous support from the RStat Institute at MSU in guiding data analysis. This study was supported by the Graduate Research Project Fund, the Graduate College, Missouri State University. Findings from this study were accepted for presentation at the American Academy of Audiology Conference in St. Louis, MO (March 30 to April 2, 2022).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Little is known about objective classifying of noise exposure risk levels in personal listening device (PLD) users and electrophysiologic evidence of cochlear synaptopathy at very fast click rates. The aim of the study was to objectively classify noise exposure risk using iPhone Health app and identify signs of cochlear synaptopathy using behavioral and electrophysiologic measures. Thirty normal-hearing females (aged 18–26 years) were grouped based on their iPhone Health app's 6-month listening level and noise exposure data into low-risk and high-risk groups. They were assessed using a questionnaire, extended high-frequency (EHF) audiometry, QuickSIN test, distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE), and simultaneous recording of electrocochleography (ECochG) and auditory brainstem response (ABR) at three click rates (19.5/s, 97.7/s, 234.4/s). A series of ANOVAs and independent samples t-test were conducted for group comparison. Both groups had within-normal EHF hearing thresholds and DPOAEs. However, the high-risk participants were over twice as likely to suffer from tinnitus, had abnormally large summating potential to action potential amplitude and area ratios at fast rates, and had slightly smaller waves I and V amplitudes. The high-risk group demonstrated a profile of behavioral and objective signs of cochlear synaptopathy based on ECochG and ABR recordings at fast click rates. The findings in this study suggest that the iPhone Health app may be a useful tool for further investigation into cochlear synaptopathy in PLD users.

Keywords

cochlear synaptopathy - iPhone Health app - otoacoustic emission - electrocochleography - auditory brainstem response

Authors' Contributions

All authors contributed to this work, with substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data and drafting the manuscript (M.T. and W.A.K.), critical review and revisions for important intellectual content (J.S. and A.J.), and final approval of the revised version (W.A.K.).




Publication History

Article published online:
26 October 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Carroll Y, Eichwald J. CDC research on non-occupational NIHL. Hear J 2017; 70 (04) 40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Noise-induced hearing loss. NIH, 2014. Pub No. 99–4233. Accessed May 28, 2020 at: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/noise-induced-hearing-loss
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Johnson TA, Cooper S, Stamper GC, Chertoff M. Noise exposure questionnaire: a tool for quantifying annual noise exposure. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (01) 14-35
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Keppler H, Dhooge I, Maes L. et al. Short-term auditory effects of listening to an MP3 player. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 136 (06) 538-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kim G, Han W. Sound pressure levels generated at risk volume steps of portable listening devices: types of smartphone and genres of music. BMC Public Health 2018; 18 (01) 481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety Criteria for a recommended standard: Occupational noise exposure. NIOSH, 1998. No. 98–126. Accessed May 30, 2020 at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-126/pdfs/98-126.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB98126
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Occupational safety and health standards: Occupational health and environmental control. OSHA (Standard No. 1910.95). Accessed May 30, 2020 at: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.95
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Neitzel RL, Fligor BJ. Risk of noise-induced hearing loss due to recreational sound: review and recommendations. J Acoust Soc Am 2019; 146 (05) 3911-3921
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gopal KV, Mills LE, Phillips BS, Nandy R. Risk assessment of recreational noise-induced hearing loss from exposure through a personal audio system-iPod touch. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (07) 619-633
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Peng JH, Tao ZZ, Huang ZW. Risk of damage to hearing from personal listening devices in young adults. J Otolaryngol Suppl 2007; 36 (03) 181-185
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Le Prell CG, Spankovich C, Lobariñas E, Griffiths SK. Extended high-frequency thresholds in college students: effects of music player use and other recreational noise. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (08) 725-739
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Furman AC, Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Noise-induced cochlear neuropathy is selective for fibers with low spontaneous rates. J Neurophysiol 2013; 110 (03) 577-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shi L, Chang Y, Li X, Aiken S, Liu L, Wang J. Cochlear synaptopathy and noise-induced hidden hearing loss. Neural Plast 2016; 2016: 6143164
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Chen D, Jia G, Ni Y, Chen Y. Hidden hearing loss. J BioX Res 2019; 2 (02) 62-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
  • 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 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
  • 18 Valero MD, Burton JA, Hauser SN, Hackett TA, Ramachandran R, Liberman MC. Noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Hear Res 2017; 353: 213-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lin HW, Furman AC, Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Primary neural degeneration in the Guinea pig cochlea after reversible noise-induced threshold shift. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2011; 12 (05) 605-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hickox AE, Larsen E, Heinz MG, Shinobu L, Whitton JP. Translational issues in cochlear synaptopathy. Hear Res 2017; 349: 164-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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
  • 22 Guest H, Munro KJ, Prendergast G, Millman RE, Plack CJ. Impaired speech perception in noise with a normal audiogram: No evidence for cochlear synaptopathy and no relation to lifetime noise exposure. Hear Res 2018; 364: 142-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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
  • 24 Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Translating animal models to human therapeutics in noise-induced and age-related hearing loss. Hear Res 2019; 377: 44-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Xiong H, Chen L, Yang H. et al. [Hidden hearing loss in tinnitus patients with normal audiograms: implications for the origin of tinnitus]. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2013; 27 (07) 362-365
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Grose JH, Buss E, Hall III JW. Loud music exposure and cochlear synaptopathy in young adults: isolated auditory brainstem response effects but no perceptual consequences. Trends Hear 2017; 21: 2331216517737417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 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
  • 28 Grinn SK, Wiseman KB, Baker JA, Le Prell CG. Hidden hearing loss? No effect of common recreational noise exposure on cochlear nerve response amplitude in humans. Front Neurosci 2017; 11: 465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gorga MP, Worthington DW, Reiland JK, Beauchaine KA, Goldgar DE. Some comparisons between auditory brain stem response thresholds, latencies, and the pure-tone audiogram. Ear Hear 1985; 6 (02) 105-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Henderson D, Subramaniam M, Spong V, Attanasio G. Biological mechanisms of the “toughening” phenomenon. In: Salvi RJ, Henderson D, eds. Auditory Plasticity and Regeneration. Thieme Medical Publishers; 1996: 143-154
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Subramaniam M, Campo P, Henderson D. The effect of exposure level on the development of progressive resistance to noise. Hear Res 1991; 52 (01) 181-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lefler SM, Kaf WA, Ferraro JA. Comparing simultaneous electrocochleography and auditory brainstem response measurements using three different extratympanic electrodes. J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32 (06) 339-346
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Burkard RF, Sims D. The human auditory brainstem response to high click rates: aging effects. Am J Audiol 2001; 10 (02) 53-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Burkard R, McGee J, Walsh EJ. Effects of stimulus rate on the feline brain-stem auditory evoked response during development. II. Peak amplitudes. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 100 (2, Pt 1): 991-1002
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kaf WA, Lewis KM, Yavuz E. et al. Fast click rate electrocochleography and auditory brainstem response in normal-hearing adults using continuous loop averaging deconvolution. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (02) 244-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Delgado RE, Ozdamar O. Deconvolution of evoked responses obtained at high stimulus rates. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 115 (03) 1242-1251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 McNeer RR, Bohórquez J, Ozdamar O. Influence of auditory stimulation rates on evoked potentials during general anesthesia: relation between the transient auditory middle-latency response and the 40-Hz auditory steady state response. Anesthesiology 2009; 110 (05) 1026-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Valderrama JT, de la Torre A, Alvarez I. et al. A study of adaptation mechanisms based on ABR recorded at high stimulation rate. Clin Neurophysiol 2014; 125 (04) 805-813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Buckey JC, Fellows AM, Clavier OH. et al. DPOAE level mapping for detecting noise-induced cochlear damage from short-duration music exposures. Noise Health 2015; 17 (78) 263-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Keppler H, Dhooge I, Vinck B. Hearing in young adults. Part II: The effects of recreational noise exposure. Noise Health 2015; 17 (78) 245-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Skoe E, Tufts J. Evidence of noise-induced subclinical hearing loss using auditory brainstem responses and objective measures of noise exposure in humans. Hear Res 2018; 361: 80-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Tufts JB, Skoe E. Examining the noisy life of the college musician: weeklong noise dosimetry of music and non-music activities. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (Suppl. 01) S20-S27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Plack CJ, Guest H, Carcagno S. Understanding extended high-frequency hearing thresholds. Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Acoustics 2019. Accessed May 2021 at: https://pub.dega-akustik.de/ICA2019/data/articles/000295.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Jerger J. Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol 1970; 92 (04) 311-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Joo GY, Kim JS, Lee JH, Cho SJ, Kim KS. Characteristics of tympanometric gradient and shape in normal adults. Korean J Audiol 2003; 7 (02) 123-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 iPhone User Guide: Check your headphone levels on iPhone. Apple Support. Accessed November 20, 2020 at: https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/check-your-headphone-levels-iph0596a9152/ios
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116 (4, Pt 1): 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 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
  • 49 Costalupes JA, Young ED, Gibson DJ. Effects of continuous noise backgrounds on rate response of auditory nerve fibers in cat. J Neurophysiol 1984; 51 (06) 1326-1344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Ferraro JA. Clinical electrocochleography: overview of theories, techniques and applications. Accessed August 8, 2022 at: http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/pf_article_detail.asp?article_id=452 2003
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Kara E, Aydın K, Akbulut AA. et al. Assessment of hidden hearing loss in normal hearing individuals with and without tinnitus. J Int Adv Otol 2020; 16 (01) 87-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Bauch CD, Olsen WO. Comparison of ABR amplitudes with TIPtrode and mastoid electrodes. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (06) 463-467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Prendergast G, Tu W, Guest H. et al. Supra-threshold auditory brainstem response amplitudes in humans: test-retest reliability, electrode montage and noise exposure. Hear Res 2018; 364: 38-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Suresh CH, Krishnan A. Search for electrophysiological indices of hidden hearing loss in humans: click auditory brainstem response across sound levels and in background noise. Ear Hear 2021; 42 (01) 53-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Rodríguez Valiente A, Roldán Fidalgo A, Villarreal IM, García Berrocal JR. Extended high-frequency audiometry (9,000-20,000 Hz). Usefulness in audiological diagnosis. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2016; 67 (01) 40-44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Shaw GM, Jardine CA, Fridjhon P. A pilot investigation of high-frequency audiometry in obscure auditory dysfunction (OAD) patients. Br J Audiol 1996; 30 (04) 233-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Badri R, Siegel JH, Wright BA. Auditory filter shapes and high-frequency hearing in adults who have impaired speech in noise performance despite clinically normal audiograms. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 129 (02) 852-863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Levy SC, Freed DJ, Nilsson M, Moore BC, Puria S. Extended high-frequency bandwidth improves speech reception in the presence of spatially separated masking speech. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (05) e214-e224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Abdala C, Visser-Dumont L. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions: a tool for hearing assessment and scientific study. Volta Review 2001; 103 (04) 281-302
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Le TN, Straatman LV, Lea J, Westerberg B. Current insights in noise-induced hearing loss: a literature review of the underlying mechanism, pathophysiology, asymmetry, and management options. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 46 (01) 41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Zeng FG. Uncovering hidden hearing loss. Hear J 2015; 68 (01) 6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 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
  • 64 Song Z, Wu Y, Tang D. et al. Tinnitus is associated with extended high-frequency hearing loss and hidden high-frequency damage in young patients. Otol Neurotol 2021; 42 (03) 377-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Tai Y, Husain FT. Right-ear advantage for speech-in-noise recognition in patients with nonlateralized tinnitus and normal hearing sensitivity. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2018; 19 (02) 211-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Grasel SS, Beck RMO, Loureiro RSC, Rossi AC, de Almeida ER, Ferraro J. Normative data for TM electrocochleography measures. J Otol 2017; 12 (02) 68-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Ferraro JA, Tibbils RP. SP/AP area ratio in the diagnosis of Ménière's disease. Am J Audiol 1999; 8 (01) 21-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Devaiah AK, Dawson KL, Ferraro JA, Ator GA. Utility of area curve ratio electrocochleography in early Meniere disease. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 129 (05) 547-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Chang SL. Electrocochleography as a diagnostic tool for noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy (T). University of British Columbia 2020. Accessed December 15, 2021 at: https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/stream/pdf/24/1.0390317/4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Marangos N. Hearing loss in multiple sclerosis: localization of the auditory pathway lesion according to electrocochleographic findings. J Laryngol Otol 1996; 110 (03) 252-257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Wilson WJ, Bowker CA. The effects of high stimulus rate on the electrocochleogram in normal-hearing subjects. Int J Audiol 2002; 41 (08) 509-517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Park E, Song I, Jeong YJ. et al. Evidence of cochlear synaptopathy and the effect of systemic steroid in acute idiopathic tinnitus with normal hearing. Otol Neurotol 2021; 42 (07) 978-984
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Valderrama JT, Beach EF, Yeend I, Sharma M, Van Dun B, Dillon H. Effects of lifetime noise exposure on the middle-age human auditory brainstem response, tinnitus and speech-in-noise intelligibility. Hear Res 2018; 365: 36-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Liberman MC, Kujawa SG. Cochlear synaptopathy in acquired sensorineural hearing loss: manifestations and mechanisms. Hear Res 2017; 349: 138-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Makary CA, Shin J, Kujawa SG, Liberman MC, Merchant SN. Age-related primary cochlear neuronal degeneration in human temporal bones. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2011; 12 (06) 711-717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Wu PZ, Liberman LD, Bennett K, de Gruttola V, O'Malley JT, Liberman MC. Primary neural degeneration in the human cochlea: evidence for hidden hearing loss in the again ear. Neuroscience 2019; 407: 8-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Eggermont JJ. Narrow-band AP latencies in normal and recruiting human ears. J Acoust Soc Am 1979; 65 (02) 463-470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Mepani AM, Kirk SA, Hancock KE. et al. Middle ear muscle reflex and word recognition in “normal-hearing” adults: evidence for cochlear synaptopathy?. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (01) 25-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Elberling C, Kristensen SG, Don M. Auditory brainstem responses to chirps delivered by different insert earphones. J Acoust Soc Am 2012; 131 (03) 2091-2100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar