Medial Olivocochlear Functioning and Speech Perception in Noise in Older Adults

Mukari, Siti Zamratol Mai Sarah; Mamat, Wan Hasyimah Wan

doi:10.1159/000128978

Cited by 38 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of these (27) also found reduced activation in the bilateral superior temporal gyrus in members of their older sample. A similar study (28) reported that decline in medial olivocochlear function might explain the poorer speech perception in noise observed in elderly listeners. The present outcomes, together with these recent reports, suggest a need for deliberate research strategies and designs to investigate further the impact of bilateral implantation as a function of chronological age.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Younger- and Older-Age Adults With Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implants

Noble¹,

Tyler²,

Dunn³

et al. 2009

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Compare results of cochlear implantation in younger and older adults in the domains of disability and handicap, as well as in tests of word recognition and localization, across unilateral implant (CI), bilateral (CI+CI) and CI with an acoustic hearing aid in the non-implanted ear (CI+HA). Design Three parts: retrospective (post-implant only) analysis; prospective (pre-versus post-implant); correlation between age and benefit from CI versus CI+CI. Two age groups, above and below 60 years, for the first two analyses; age is a continuous variable for the third analysis. Setting Tertiary referral hospital clinic Patients Postlingually severely-to-profoundly hearing impaired adults: Totals of 68 CI, 36 CI+CI, and 38 CI+HA in the retrospective part of the study; totals of 30 CI, 18 CI+CI and 16 CI+HA in the prospective parts. Numbers vary from these totals on individual measures. Interventions Patients receive either one or two cochlear implants; some with one CI opt to retain a hearing aid in the non-implanted ear. Outcome measures Principal measures: Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, Hearing Handicap Questionnaire, Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing scale, word recognition test, and soundfield localization test. The study is exploratory, but proceeding from a null hypothesis of no expected contrast as a function of patient age. Results All patient groups show significant benefit following implantation. No significant age-related differences are observed in patients with unilateral implant, nor in CI+HA group. In the CI+CI group, the younger cohort showed very substantial increases in both performance and self-rated abilities; the older cohort provides more mixed outcomes. Conclusion Results for the CI group confirm and extend earlier research. The result for the younger group of CI+CI patients demonstrates the consistent incremental benefit obtained from a bilateral procedure. The mixed outcome observed in the older CI+CI group might be due to individual differences in interaction between effects of aging and the ability to integrate binaural cues.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Younger- and Older-Age Adults With Unilateral and Bilateral Cochlear Implants

Noble¹,

Tyler²,

Dunn³

et al. 2009

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several extensions to cochlear models (Messing, Delhorne, Bruckert, Braida, and Ghitza, 2009;Brown, Ferry, and Meddis, 2010) have been proposed for mimicking the MOC reflex, and these models have shown that better automatic speech recognition performance in noise can be achieved when the MOC model is incorporated into the cochlear model. However, there have been reports by others who have not observed a correlation of speech intelligibility with the olivocochlear reflex (Wagner, Frey, Heppelmann, Plontke, and Zenner, 2008;Mukari and Mamat, 2008). Transient evoked (TE) and stimulus frequency evoked (SF) OAEs at low and moderate stimulus levels are thought to be generated by a linear coherent reflection of the forward traveling wave near the tonotopic peak region (Zweig and Shera, 1995;Kalluri and Shera, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of acute hyperglycemia on otoacoustic emissions and the medial olivocochlear reflex

Jacobs

Konrad-Martin

McMillan

et al. 2012

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimulus-frequency (SF) otoacoustic emission (OAE) amplitude and the amplitude of medial olivocochlear (MOC) inhibition of SF OAEs for ipsilateral, contralateral and bilateral MOC reflex elicitors were recorded in six subjects with type 2 diabetes during a glucose tolerance test (GTT). Five of the six subjects were tested twice for a total of 11 trials and three subjects were tested in a control experiment. During the GTT experiment, the subjects' blood glucose was elevated from a euglycemic level below 150 mg/dL to a hyperglycemic level above 160 mg/dL following the consumption of a bolus of 80 g of sugar. A subset of three subjects were tested in a control experiment during which SF OAE and MOC reflex measurements were made while blood sugar levels remained constant within the euglycemic region. Mean SF OAE amplitudes were elevated following glucose consumption. A statistically significant increase in MOC inhibition amplitude was observed during elevated sugar levels for the 11 GTT trials. Maximum inhibition occurred about an hour after glucose consumption when blood glucose levels peaked. Results indicate that acute hyperglycemia influences efferent control of the cochlea in people with type 2 diabetes.

show abstract

“…This also suggests a slightly immature pattern of SSOAEs frequency distribution exists in 2-to 4 -day-old neonates, and implies that the OHCs should still be undergoing functional regulation after birth. But, we should note that Braun's study contained data from adults with a large span of age ranges, and some of the adults were at an age where their OHCs have already begun to degenerate [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%