Effect of Contralateral Noise on Acoustic Reflex Latency Measures

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:The present study was conducted to determine the effect of contralateral broadband noise on acoustic reflex latency (ARL). MATERIALS and METHODS:Acoustic reflex latency changes for 10 and 90% on-and off-time acoustic reflexes with contralateral broadband noise were measured in 30 adults with normal hearing. RESULTS:The results of the study demonstrate that there was a latency prolongation for reflex on-time (10 and 90%) and latency reduction for reflex off-time (10 and 90%). This effect was seen for 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz reflex-eliciting signals. The results also showed that there was no effect of gender on latency changes in acoustic reflexes. CONCLUSIONS:Latency changes may explain efferent auditory system mechanisms used for the protection of the cochlea and improvement in speech perception. Thus, contralateral changes of ARL can serve as an additional tool to assess the efferent system functioning.

Acoustic Reflex Latency (ARL) Assessment in Malaysian Adults: The Effects of Age, Gender and Stimulus Frequency

“…As shown, no significant influence of stimulus frequency on ARL was found in the present study. This finding is in line with the previous study findings (Narayanan, 2017;Prabhu et al, 2015). However, the ARL values have also been reported to be longer at high frequencies (Clemis and Sarno, 1980;Qiu and Stacker, 1998).…”

“…In terms of gender, comparable ARL results were found between males and females, indicating an insignificant influence of gender on ARL. This finding is consistent with the previous studies on ARL (Prabhu et al, 2015) and ART (Bauch and Robinette, 1978;Rawool, 1998). Prabhu and colleagues (2015) recorded ARL in 30 normally hearing adults (15 males and 15 females) with and without the presentation of contralateral broadband noise.…”

“…Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, the latency features of acoustic reflex have not been extensively studied and require further investigations. In the present study, the acoustic reflex latencies were recorded and calculated according to the recommended protocol (Clemis and Sarno, 1980;Colletti, 1974;Narayanan, 2017;Prabhu et al, 2015). As an effort to obtain reliable acoustic reflex waveforms, the recordings were made at 10 dB above ART.…”

“…This onset measure was chosen as it has been shown to be sensitive in detecting auditory disorders (Clemis and Sarno, 1980;Jerger and Hayes, 1983;Jerger et al, 1978). Other latency measures including late latency (the latency difference between the stimulus onset and 90% of maximum amplitude), initial recovery (the latency difference between the stimulus offset and 90% of maximum amplitude) and terminal recovery (the latency difference between the stimulus offset and 10% of maximum amplitude) have also been reported (Clemis and Sarno, 1980;Jerger and Hayes, 1983;Narayanan, 2017;Prabhu et al, 2015). The mean onset ARL values obtained in the present study are in fact consistent with the previous studies on Caucasian adults (Clemis and Sarno, 1980;Jerger and Hayes, 1983;Narayanan, 2017;Prabhu et al, 2015).…”

Characterization of Acoustic Reflex Latency in Females

“…Acoustic Reflex Latency Test is defined as the time for the first detectable impedance change resulting from stapedius muscle contraction following an intense acoustic stimulation, that is, the time interval between the onset of an intense auditory stimulus and onset of middle ear muscle contraction [86].…”