Associations between the medial olivocochlear reflex, middle-ear muscle reflex, and sentence-in-noise recognition using steady and pulsed noise elicitors.

ABSTRACT

The middle-ear muscle reflex (MEMR) and medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR) modify peripheral auditory function, which may reduce masking and improve speech-in-noise (SIN) recognition. Previous work and our pilot data suggest that the two reflexes respond differently to static versus dynamic noise elicitors. However, little is known about how the two reflexes work in tandem to contribute to SIN recognition. We hypothesized that SIN recognition would be significantly correlated with the strength of the MEMR and with the strength of the MOCR. Additionally, we hypothesized that SIN recognition would be best when both reflexes were activated. A total of 43 healthy, normal-hearing adults met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (35 females, age range 19-29 years). MEMR strength was assessed using wideband absorbance. MOCR strength was assessed using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. SIN recognition was assessed using a modified version of the QuickSIN. All measurements were made with and without two types of contralateral noise elicitors (steady and pulsed) at two levels (50 and 65 dB SPL). Steady noise was used to primarily elicit the MOCR and pulsed noise was used to elicit both reflexes. Two baseline conditions without a contralateral elicitor were also obtained. Results revealed differences in how the MEMR and MOCR responded to elicitor type and level. Contrary to hypotheses, SIN recognition was not significantly improved in the presence of any contralateral elicitors relative to the baseline conditions. Additionally, there were no significant correlations between MEMR strength and SIN recognition, or between MOCR strength and SIN recognition. MEMR and MOCR strength were significantly correlated for pulsed noise elicitors but not steady noise elicitors. Results suggest no association between SIN recognition and the MEMR or MOCR, at least as measured and analyzed in this study. SIN recognition may have been influenced by factors not accounted for in this study, such as contextual cues, warranting further study.