Top

Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Published in:

11-12-2023 | Original Article: General Research

Speech Perception in Noise and Medial Olivocochlear Reflex: Effects of Age, Speech Stimulus, and Response-Related Variables

Authors: Shezeen Abdul Gafoor, Ajith Kumar Uppunda

Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology | Issue 6/2023

Abstract

Purpose

The role of the medial olivocochlear system in speech perception in noise has been debated over the years, with studies showing mixed results. One possible reason for this could be the dependence of this relationship on the parameters used in assessing the speech perception ability (age, stimulus, and response-related variables).

Methods

The current study assessed the influence of the type of speech stimuli (monosyllables, words, and sentences), the signal-to-noise ratio (+5, 0, −5, and −10 dB), the metric used to quantify the speech perception ability (percent-correct, SNR-50, and slope of the psychometric function) and age (young vs old) on the relationship between medial olivocochlear reflex (quantified by contralateral inhibition of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions) and speech perception in noise.

Results

A linear mixed-effects model revealed no significant contributions of the medial olivocochlear reflex to speech perception in noise.

Conclusion

The results suggest that there was no evidence of any modulatory influence of the indirectly measured medial olivocochlear reflex strength on speech perception in noise.

Available only for authorised users

Guinan JJ (2006) Olivocochlear efferents: anatomy, physiology, function, and the measurement of efferent effects in humans. Ear Hear 27:589–607. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aud.0000240507.83072.e7CrossRefPubMed

Collet L, Kemp DT, Veuillet E, Duclaux R, Alain M, Moulin A (1990) Effect of contralateral auditory stimuli on active cochlear micro-mechanical properties in human subjects. Hear Res 43:251–261CrossRefPubMed

Backus BC, Guinan JJ (2007) Measurement of the distribution of medial olivocochlear acoustic reflex strengths across normal-hearing individuals via otoacoustic emissions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8:484–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-007-0100-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chintanpalli A, Jennings SG, Heinz MG, Strickland EA (2012) Modeling the anti-masking effects of the olivocochlear reflex in auditory nerve responses to tones in sustained noise. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13:219–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-011-0310-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jennings SG (2021) The role of the medial olivocochlear reflex in psychophysical masking and intensity resolution in humans: a review. J Neurophysiol 125:2279–2308. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00672.2020CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brown GJ, Ferry RT, Meddis R (2010) A computer model of auditory efferent suppression: implications for the recognition of speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 127:943–954CrossRefPubMed

Yashaswini L, Maruthy S (2019) The influence of efferent inhibition on speech perception in noise: a revisit through its level-dependent function. Am J Audiol 28:508–515. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJA-IND50-18-0098CrossRefPubMed

Shaikh MA, Connell K, Zhang D (2021) Controlled (re)evaluation of the relationship between speech perception in noise and contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res 409:108332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2021.108332CrossRefPubMed

Kumar UA, Vanaja CS (2004) Functioning of olivocochlear bundle and speech perception in noise. Ear Hear 25:142–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AUD.0000120363.56591.E6CrossRefPubMed

10.

Harkrider AW, Smith SB (2005) Acceptable noise level, phoneme recognition in noise, and measures of auditory efferent activity. J Am Acad Audiol 16:530–545. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.16.8.2CrossRefPubMed

11.

Akbari M, Panahi R, Valadbeigi A, Hamadi Nahrani M (2020) Speech-in-noise perception ability can be related to auditory efferent pathway function: a comparative study in reading impaired and normal reading children. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 86:209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2018.11.010CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mukari SZMS, Mamat WHW (2008) Medial olivocochlear functioning and speech perception in noise in older adults. Audiol Neurotol 13:328–334CrossRef

13.

Bidelman GM, Bhagat SP (2015) Right-ear advantage drives the link between olivocochlear efferent ‘antimasking’ and speech-in-noise listening benefits. NeuroReport 26:483–487. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000376CrossRefPubMed

14.

Maruthy S, Kumar UA, Gnanateja GN (2017) Functional interplay between the putative measures of rostral and caudal efferent regulation of speech perception in noise. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 18:635–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-017-0623-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

MacPherson A, Akeroyd MA (2014) Variations in the slope of the psychometric functions for speech intelligibility: a systematic survey. Trends Hear 18:233121651453772. https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216514537722CrossRef

16.

Guinan JJ (2011) Physiology of the medial and lateral olivocochlear systems. In: Ryugo DK, Fay RR (eds) Auditory and vestibular efferents. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, vol 38. Springer, New York, NY, pp 39–81

17.

Mertes IB, Wilbanks EC, Leek MR (2018) Olivocochlear efferent activity is associated with the slope of the psychometric function of speech recognition in noise. Ear Hear 39:583–593. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000514CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Otsuka S, Nakagawa S, Furukawa S (2020) Relationship between characteristics of medial olivocochlear reflex and speech-in-noise-reception performance. Acoust Sci Technol 41:404–407. https://doi.org/10.1250/ast.41.404CrossRef

19.

Abdala C, Dhar S, Ahmadi M, Luo P (2014) Aging of the medial olivocochlear reflex and associations with speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am 135:754–765. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4861841CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Füllgrabe C, Moore BCJ, Stone MA (2015) Age-group differences in speech identification despite matched audiometrically normal hearing: contributions from auditory temporal processing and cognition. Front Aging Neurosci 6:1–25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00347CrossRef

21.

Koerner TK, Zhang Y (2017) Application of linear mixed-effects models in human neuroscience research: a comparison with pearson correlation in two auditory electrophysiology studies. Brain Sci 7:26. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci7030026CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Gueorguieva R, Krystal JH (2004) Move over ANOVA. Arch Gen Psychiatry 61:310. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.61.3.310CrossRefPubMed

23.

Venkatesan S (2009) Ethical guidelines for bio-behavioral research involving human subjects. http://aiishmysore.in/pdf/ethical_guidelines.pdf. Accessed 7 Sep 2023

24.

American National Standards Institute (1999) American national standard maximum permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric rooms [ANSI S3.1–1999]. New York

25.

Jerger J (1970) Clinical Experience with impedence audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol 92:311–324CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kaipa R, Kumar UA (2017) Functioning of medial olivocochlear bundle in right- and left-handed individuals. Laterality Asymmetries Body Brain Cogn 22:445–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2016.1217229CrossRef

27.

Wilson RH (1981) The effects of aging on the magnitude of the acoustic reflex. J Speech Lang Hear Res 24:406–414. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2403.406CrossRef

28.

Mayadevi C (1974) Development and standardization of a common speech discrimination test for Indians [Unpublished Dissertation]. University of Mysore

29.

Manjula P, Antony J, Kumar K, Geetha C (2015) Development of phonemically balanced word lists for adults in the Kannada language. J Hear Sci 5:22–30. https://doi.org/10.17430/893515

30.

Geetha C, Kumar KSS, Manjula P, Pavan M (2014) Development and standardisation of the sentence identification test in the Kannada language. J Hear Sci 4:18–26CrossRef

31.

Avinash M, Meti R, Kumar U (2009) Development of sentences for Quick Speech-in-Noise (Quick SIN) test in Kannada. J Indian Speech Hear Assoc 24:59–65

32.

Stuart A, Butler AK (2012) Contralateral suppression of transient otoacoustic emissions and sentence recognition in noise in young adults. J Am Acad Audiol 23:686–696. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.23.9.3CrossRefPubMed

33.

Gnanateja GN (2017) Speech in noise mixing, signal to noise ratio [Computer Software]

34.

Finney DJ (1952) Probit Analysis: A Statistical Treatment of the Sigmoid Response Curve, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York-London

35.

Tillman TW, Olsen W (1973) Speech audiometry. In: Jerger J (ed) Modern developments in audiology, 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York, NY, pp 37–74

36.

Schütt H, Harmeling S, Macke J, Wichmann F (2015) Psignifit 4: pain-free Bayesian inference for psychometric functions. J Vis 15:474. https://doi.org/10.1167/15.12.474CrossRef

37.

LaFlair GT, Egbert J, Plonsky L (2015) A practical guide to bootstrapping, descriptive statistics, correlations, t-tests, and ANOVAs. In: Plonsky L (ed) Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 46–77

38.

Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications Inc., London, UK

39.

R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer Software]

40.

Ryan S, Kemp DT (1996) The influence of evoking stimulus level on the neural suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res 94:140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(96)00021-4CrossRefPubMed

41.

Lewis JD (2019) The effect of otoacoustic emission stimulus level on the strength and detectability of the medial olivocochlear reflex. Ear Hear 40:1391–1403. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000719CrossRefPubMed

42.

Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

43.

Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82:1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

44.

Brown VA (2021) An introduction to linear mixed-effects modeling in R. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci 4:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920960351

45.

Meteyard L, Davies RAI (2020) Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. J Mem Lang 112:104092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104092CrossRef

46.

Keppler H, Dhooge I, Corthals P, Maes L, D’haenens W, Bockstael A, Philips B, Swinnen F, Vinck B (2010) The effects of aging on evoked otoacoustic emissions and efferent suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. Clin Neurophysiol 121:359–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.11.003

47.

Shera CA, Guinan JJ (1999) Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: a taxonomy for mammalian OAEs. J Acoust Soc Am 105:782–798. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.426948CrossRefPubMed

48.

Heinrich A, Knight S (2016) The contribution of auditory and cognitive factors to intelligibility of words and sentences in noise. In: van Dijk P, Başkent D, Gaudrain E, de Kleine E, Wagner A, Lanting C (eds) Physiology, psychoacoustics and cognition in normal and impaired hearing. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 894. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp 37–45

49.

Vander Werff KR, Burns KS (2011) Brain stem responses to speech in younger and older adults. Ear Hear 32:168–180. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181f534b5CrossRefPubMed

50.

Gafoor SA, Uppunda AK (2023) Role of the medial olivocochlear efferent auditory system in speech perception in noise: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Int J Audiol. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2023.2260951

51.

Kawase T, Liberman MC (1993) Antimasking effects of the olivocochlear reflex. I. Enhancement of compound action potentials to masked tones. J Neurophysiol 70:2519–2532. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1993.70.6.2519CrossRefPubMed

52.

Hienz RD, Stiles P, May BJ (1998) Effects of bilateral olivocochlear lesions on vowel formant discrimination in cats. Hear Res 116:10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(97)00197-4CrossRefPubMed

53.

Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Hurley AE, Wen H, Kemp DT (1995) Binaural noise suppresses linear click-evoked otoacoustic emissions more than ipsilateral or contralateral noise. Hear Res 87:96–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(95)00082-FCrossRefPubMed

54.

DeRoy MK, Alexander JM, Strickland EA (2021) The relationship between ipsilateral cochlear gain reduction and speech-in-noise recognition at positive and negative signal-to-noise ratios. J Acoust Soc Am 149:3449–3461. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0003964CrossRef

55.

Feeney MP, Keefe DH (2001) Estimating the acoustic reflex threshold from wideband measures of reflectance, admittance, and power. Ear Hear 22:316–332. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200108000-00006CrossRefPubMed

56.

Liberman MC, Guinan JJ (1998) Feedback control of the auditory periphery: anti-masking effects of middle ear muscles vs. olivocochlear efferents. J Commun Disord 31:471–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(98)00019-7CrossRefPubMed

57.

Jennings SG, Aviles ES (2023) Middle ear muscle and medial olivocochlear activity inferred from individual human ears via cochlear potentials. J Acoust Soc Am 153:1723–1732. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0017604CrossRefPubMed

58.

Boothalingam S, Goodman SS, MacCrae H, Dhar S (2021) A time-course-based estimation of the human medial olivocochlear reflex function using clicks. Front Neurosci 15:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.746821CrossRef

Title: Speech Perception in Noise and Medial Olivocochlear Reflex: Effects of Age, Speech Stimulus, and Response-Related Variables
Authors: Shezeen Abdul Gafoor
Ajith Kumar Uppunda
Publication date: 11-12-2023
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology / Issue 6/2023
Print ISSN: 1525-3961
Electronic ISSN: 1438-7573
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-023-00919-w

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Speech Perception in Noise and Medial Olivocochlear Reflex: Effects of Age, Speech Stimulus, and Response-Related Variables

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2023

Spectral Grouping of Electrically Encoded Sound Predicts Speech-in-Noise Performance in Cochlear Implantees

Noise-Induced Hearing Threshold Shift Correlated with Body Weight and External-Ear Amplification in Chinchilla: a Preliminary Analysis

Screening for Circulating Inflammatory Proteins Does Not Reveal Plasma Biomarkers of Constant Tinnitus

Genome-Wide Association Study of Chronic Dizziness in the Elderly Identifies Loci Implicating MLLT10, BPTF, LINC01224, and ROS1

Review and Perspective on Brain Bases of Tinnitus

Eavesdropping on Tinnitus Using MEG: Lessons Learned and Future Perspectives