Electrophysiology and Perception of Speech in Noise in Older Listeners: Effects of Hearing Impairment and Age.

OBJECTIVES: Speech perception in background noise is difficult for many individuals, and there is considerable performance variability across listeners. The combination of physiological and behavioral measures may help to understand sources of this variability for individuals and groups and prove useful clinically with hard-to-test populations. The purpose of this study was threefold: (1) determine the effect of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal level on cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and sentence-level perception in older normal-hearing (ONH) and older hearing-impaired (OHI) individuals, (2) determine the effects of hearing impairment and age on CAEPs and perception, and (3) explore how well CAEPs correlate with and predict speech perception in noise. DESIGN: Two groups of older participants (15 ONH and 15 OHI) were tested using speech-in-noise stimuli to measure CAEPs and sentence-level perception of speech. The syllable /ba/, used to evoke CAEPs, and sentences were presented in speech-spectrum background noise at four signal levels (50, 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) and up to seven SNRs (-10, -5, 0, 5, 15, 25, and 35 dB). These data were compared between groups to reveal the hearing impairment effect and then combined with previously published data for 15 young normal-hearing individuals to determine the aging effect. RESULTS: Robust effects of SNR were found for perception and CAEPs. Small but significant effects of signal level were found for perception, primarily at poor SNRs and high signal levels, and in some limited instances for CAEPs. Significant effects of age were seen for both CAEPs and perception, while hearing impairment effects were only found with perception measures. CAEPs correlate well with perception and can predict SNR50s to within 2 dB for ONH. However, prediction error is much larger for OHI and varies widely (from 6 to 12 dB) depending on the model that was used for prediction. CONCLUSIONS: When background noise is present, SNR dominates both perception-in-noise testing and cortical electrophysiological testing, with smaller and sometimes significant contributions from signal level. A mismatch between behavioral and electrophysiological results was found (hearing impairment effects were primarily only seen for behavioral data), illustrating the possible contributions of higher order cognitive processes on behavior. It is interesting that the hearing impairment effect size was more than five times larger than the aging effect size for CAEPs and perception. Sentence-level perception can be predicted well in normal-hearing individuals; however, additional research is needed to explore improved prediction methods for older individuals with hearing impairment.

A Large-Scale Examination of Veterans with Normal Pure-Tone Hearing Thresholds within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) audiologists have anecdotally reported examining numerous Veterans with normal pure-tone thresholds; however, the prevalence of these patients within the VA is unknown. The VA audiological data repository provides an ideal dataset to examine this group of Veterans. Knowing the prevalence of normal-hearing Veterans within the VA system is the first step to understanding the underlying referral patterns and clinical complaints of Veterans. Data repositories which capture data from both normal and impaired populations provide an indispensable view into hearing health care which can help to improve diagnosis and treatment of Veterans' hearing difficulties. PURPOSE: Using the VA audiological data repository, this study aimed to (1) determine the prevalence of normal hearing thresholds among Veterans seeking hearing health care within the VA health care system and (2) determine the prevalence of abnormal clinical audiology test results among Veterans with normal hearing thresholds. RESEARCH DESIGN: This study was a large-scale retrospective, descriptive observational analysis of uploaded audiological records from the VA Denver Acquisition and Logistics Center audiological data repository encompassing visits that took place between April 1991 and June 2015. STUDY SAMPLE: At the time of data extraction, there were 3,641,326 audiological records in the repository, with 2,322,771 unique individual records. The study sample was further restricted to include only individuals with normal hearing (n = 235,091), which was defined as pure-tone thresholds better than, or equal to, 25 dB HL at octave frequencies from 250 to 8000 Hz, bilaterally. Patients ranged from 19 to 90+ years of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We describe the data using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and standard deviations for continuous variables. In addition to hearing thresholds, the occurrence of abnormal results on other tests in the audiological test battery is also reported. We estimate the prevalence of normal hearing among all Veterans with records in the VA audiological data repository. RESULTS: Veterans with normal hearing were on average 37 yr old. The prevalence of Veterans with normal hearing thresholds visiting VA audiology clinics in the current hearing repository dataset was 10.12%. Overall, 41% of Veterans with normal pure-tone thresholds had other clinically abnormal audiological test results; for example, contralateral acoustic reflex thresholds (31.7%) and tympanometry (21.5%) had the highest rate of abnormal test results. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in ten Veterans seeking care within the VA healthcare system, and reported to the VA audiological data repository, has normal pure-tone hearing thresholds. This may be an underestimate of the true underlying prevalence of normal-hearing Veterans seeking audiology services at the VA because records with normal results were not consistently submitted to the repository. In addition, 41% of Veterans with normal pure-tone thresholds nonetheless presented with other audiological abnormalities. This study suggests that future work directed toward understanding referral patterns and clinical complaints of individuals who present to VA audiology clinics with normal hearing thresholds may be fruitful in the cause of improving diagnosis and treatment of Veterans' hearing difficulties.

Phoneme and Word Scoring in Speech-in-Noise Audiometry.

PURPOSE: Understanding speech in background noise is difficult for many individuals; however, time constraints have limited its inclusion in the clinical audiology assessment battery. Phoneme scoring of words has been suggested as a method of reducing test time and variability. The purposes of this study were to establish a phoneme scoring rubric and use it in testing phoneme and word perception in noise in older individuals and individuals with hearing impairment. METHOD: Words were presented to 3 participant groups at 80 dB in speech-shaped noise at 7 signal-to-noise ratios (-10 to 35 dB). Responses were scored for words and phonemes correct. RESULTS: It was not surprising to find that phoneme scores were up to about 30% better than word scores. Word scoring resulted in larger hearing loss effect sizes than phoneme scoring, whereas scoring method did not significantly modify age effect sizes. There were significant effects of hearing loss and some limited effects of age; age effect sizes of about 3 dB and hearing loss effect sizes of more than 10 dB were found. CONCLUSION: Hearing loss is the major factor affecting word and phoneme recognition with a subtle contribution of age. Phoneme scoring may provide several advantages over word scoring. A set of recommended phoneme scoring guidelines is provided.

Predicting perception in noise using cortical auditory evoked potentials.

Speech perception in background noise is a common challenge across individuals and health conditions (e.g., hearing impairment, aging, etc.). Both behavioral and physiological measures have been used to understand the important factors that contribute to perception-in-noise abilities. The addition of a physiological measure provides additional information about signal-in-noise encoding in the auditory system and may be useful in clarifying some of the variability in perception-in-noise abilities across individuals. Fifteen young normal-hearing individuals were tested using both electrophysiology and behavioral methods as a means to determine (1) the effects of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal level and (2) how well cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) can predict perception in noise. Three correlation/regression approaches were used to determine how well CAEPs predicted behavior. Main effects of SNR were found for both electrophysiology and speech perception measures, while signal level effects were found generally only for speech testing. These results demonstrate that when signals are presented in noise, sensitivity to SNR cues obscures any encoding of signal level cues. Electrophysiology and behavioral measures were strongly correlated. The best physiological predictors (e.g., latency, amplitude, and area of CAEP waves) of behavior (SNR at which 50 % of the sentence is understood) were N1 latency and N1 amplitude measures. In addition, behavior was best predicted by the 70-dB signal/5-dB SNR CAEP condition. It will be important in future studies to determine the relationship of electrophysiology and behavior in populations who experience difficulty understanding speech in noise such as those with hearing impairment or age-related deficits.

Clinical use of aided cortical auditory evoked potentials as a measure of physiological detection or physiological discrimination.

The clinical usefulness of aided cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) remains unclear despite several decades of research. One major contributor to this ambiguity is the wide range of variability across published studies and across individuals within a given study; some results demonstrate expected amplification effects, while others demonstrate limited or no amplification effects. Recent evidence indicates that some of the variability in amplification effects may be explained by distinguishing between experiments that focused on physiological detection of a stimulus versus those that differentiate responses to two audible signals, or physiological discrimination. Herein, we ask if either of these approaches is clinically feasible given the inherent challenges with aided CAEPs. N1 and P2 waves were elicited from 12 noise-masked normal-hearing individuals using hearing-aid-processed 1000-Hz pure tones. Stimulus levels were varied to study the effect of hearing-aid-signal/hearing-aid-noise audibility relative to the noise-masked thresholds. Results demonstrate that clinical use of aided CAEPs may be justified when determining whether audible stimuli are physiologically detectable relative to inaudible signals. However, differentiating aided CAEPs elicited from two suprathreshold stimuli (i.e., physiological discrimination) is problematic and should not be used for clinical decision making until a better understanding of the interaction between hearing-aid-processed stimuli and CAEPs can be established.