Latent cochlear damage in personal stereo users: a study based on click‐evoked otoacoustic emissions

Abstract

Objective To assess the effects of use of personal stereo systems (PS) on hearing by means of the objective measure of transient‐evoked otoacoustic emissions. Participants and setting People aged between 10 and 59 years who had otoacoustic emissions recorded by the National Acoustic Laboratories between 1989 and 1997 were eligible for inclusion. Recordings from participants with hereditary disorders or any form of aural disease (eg, otitis media, otosclerosis, fluctuant hearing loss, Meniere's syndrome, or exposure to ototoxic substances) were excluded. Methods Transient‐evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) records were obtained with a standard 260 repetitions of an 80 dB train of clicks used for recording outer hair cell activity. The measure of otoacoustic emission strength was the Otodynamics IL088 variable Waverepro%. For each participant, all the key factors relating to their hearing history were assessed from patient referral information or from demographic information obtained in writing at the time of recording either in the form of a detailed questionnaire or verbal assessment. Otoacoustic emission data were analysed according to age, industrial noise exposure and personal stereo use. Results Usable otoacoustic emission records were obtained from 1724 people (1066 males and 658 females). Otoacoustic emission strength declined with age, and was significantly lower in males than females, lower in people exposed to industrial noise than those not exposed, and significantly lower in users of personal stereo systems than non‐users. People with both kinds of noise exposure had values which were significantly lower again, indicating an additive effect. Conclusions As only 39 people with PS exposure admitted any hearing problems, decline in otoacoustic emission strength forewarns premature hearing loss in personal stereo users.

Low-level otoacoustic emissions may predict susceptibility to noise-induced hearing loss

“…Cross-sectional studies have shown that OAEs are sensitive indicators of permanent noise-induced damage to the inner ear in groups of noise-exposed people, with lower OAE levels associated with higher audiometric thresholds ͑e.g., LePage and Murray, 1998;Desai et al, 1999;Mansfied et al, 1999;Attias et al, 2001͒. Furthermore, noise-exposed people tend to have lower OAEs than people with similar audiometric thresholds but no noise exposure ͑Bicciolo et Murray and LePage 1993;Attias et al, 1995Attias et al, , 1998Xu et al, 1998;Desai et al, 1999;Attias et al, 2001͒.…”

Changes in otoacoustic emissions and high-frequency hearing thresholds in children and adolescents

“…However, the differences in TEOAE responses may be caused by a smaller ear canal volume in children than in adults (Bray and Kemp, 1987). The influence of aging on TEOAEs has been described as decreasing TEOAE occurrence with increasing age, independent of pure tone hearing threshold levels (Le Page and Murray, 1998). However, Bertoli and Probst (1997) and Prieve and Falter (1995) demonstrated that in adults with good hearing thresholds at low and middle frequencies, no influence of age on OAEs could be observed.…”

Distortion product otoacoustic emission of symphony orchestra musicians before and after rehearsal

“…Therefore OAEs are considered to be at least as sensitive to detect small noiseinduced changes in the auditory system as the hearing thresholds. This could be confirmed by several studies ͑Attias et al., 1995;Desai et al, 1999Hotz et al, 1993Kowalska and Sulkowski, 1997;LePage and Murray, 1998;Lucertini et al, 2002;Murray and LePage, 1998;Sliwinska-Kowalska and Kotylo, 2002͒, suggesting that OAE might be used as an early warning sign of noise-induced hearing loss. A direct relation between OAE level and the hearing threshold is not fully established ͑Avan et al ͑1991͒; Bonfils and Avan ͑1992͒; Gaskill and Brown ͑1993͒; Gorga et al ͑1993͒͒.…”