Effects of Simulated Conductive Hearing Loss on Dichotic Listening Performance for Digits

1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-318
Author(s):  
Nancy Niccum ◽  
Charles Speaks ◽  
Jun Katsuki-Nakamura ◽  
Dianne Van Tasell
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Control Performance ◽  
Intensity Functions ◽  
Conductive Hearing

This experiment assessed conditions under which simulated conductive hearing loss would affect performance on a digit dichotic test. Losses were simulated by insertion of EAR plugs, and each subject served as his/her own control. Performance for left ear plugged and right ear plugged conditions was compared with performance in a normal hearing condition (neither ear plugged). Conductive losses did not affect dichotic performance at test intensities 12 dB above the "knees" of monotic performance-intensity functions for the plugged ears (95% correct points) but did affect dichotic performance for some listeners at intensities that were Within 8 dB of the monotic knees.

Peripheral Hearing Loss

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Speaks ◽  
Karen Bauer ◽  
Jane Carlstrom
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Dichotic Listening ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Listening Test ◽  
Test Intensity ◽  
Intensity Functions ◽  
Conductive Hearing

This experiment assessed the extent to which a peripheral hearing loss may confound interpretation of dichotic listening test results in assessment of central auditory deficit. A normal-hearing listener was tested monotically and dichotically with CV nonsense syllables in two conditions. In one, an EAR plug inserted in the auditory canal to simulate a unilateral conductive hearing loss. In the second, no plus was inserted. Syllables were presented with equal intensity to the two ears for dichotic testing and testing was conducted at several different intensities. With the plug inserted, both magnitude and direction of percent ear advantage varied with test intensity even when monotic speech recognition scores exceeded 95% for both ears. When dichotic tests are used to assess central auditory deficit in patients with peripheral hearing loss, we recommend that the test intensity be at least 10 dB from both the lower and upper knees of monotic performance-intensity functions.

scholarly journals The validity of an isiZulu speech reception threshold test for use with adult isiZulu speakers

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Seema Panday ◽  
Harsha Kathard ◽  
Wayne J. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
First Language ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Speech Reception ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Background: This study continued the development of an isiZulu speech reception threshold (zSRT) test for use with first language, adult speakers of isiZulu.Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the convergent and concurrent validity of the zSRT test.Methods: One hundred adult isiZulu first-language speakers with normal hearing and 76 first-language, adult isiZulu speakers with conductive or sensorineural hearing losses ranging from mild to severe were assessed on pure tone audiometry and a newly developed isiZulu SRT test. Convergent validity was established through agreement of the zSRT scores with pure tone average (PTA) scores. Concurrent validity was assessed by examining the steepness of the psychometric curve for each word in the zSRT test for each type and degree of hearing loss.Results: Intraclass correlation coefficient analyses showed zSRT scores were in substantial to very high agreement with PTA scores for the normal hearing and hearing loss groups (NH – right ear ICC consistency = 0.78, left ear ICC = 0.67; HL – right ear ICC consistency = 0.97, left ear ICC consistency = 0.95). The mean psychometric slope (%/dB) at 50% correct perception for all words in the zSRT test was 4.92%/dB for the mild conductive hearing loss group, 5.26%/dB for the moderate conductive hearing loss group, 2.85%/dB for the moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss group and 2.47%/dB for the severe sensorineural hearing loss group. These slopes were appropriate for the degree of hearing loss observed in each group.Conclusion: The zSRT test showed convergent and concurrent validity for assessing SRT in first language, adult speakers of isiZulu.

scholarly journals Responses of Ventral Cochlear Nucleus Neurons to Contralateral Sound After Conductive Hearing Loss

2005 ◽  
Vol 94 (6) ◽  
pp. 4234-4243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian J. Sumner ◽  
Debara L. Tucci ◽  
Susan E. Shore
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Nucleus ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Inhibitory Response ◽  
Broadband Noise ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Ventral Cochlear Nucleus ◽  
Excitatory Responses ◽  
Conductive Hearing

Conductive hearing loss (CHL) is an attenuation of signals stimulating the cochlea, without damage to the auditory end organ. It can cause central auditory processing deficits that outlast the CHL itself. Measures of oxidative metabolism show a decrease in activity of nuclei receiving input originating at the affected ear but, surprisingly, an increase in the activity of second-order neurons of the opposite ear. In normal hearing animals, contralateral sound produces an inhibitory response to broadband noise in approximately one third of ventral cochlear nucleus (VCN) neurons. Excitatory responses also occur but are very rare. We looked for changes in the binaural properties of neurons in the VCN of guinea pigs at intervals immediately, 1 day, 1 wk, and 2 wk after the induction of a unilateral CHL by ossicular disruption. CHL was always induced in the ear ipsilateral to the VCN from which recordings were made. The main observations were as follows: 1) ipsilateral excitatory thresholds were raised by at least 40 dB; 2) contralateral inhibitory responses showed a small but statistically significant immediate decrease followed by an increase, returning to normal by 14 days; and 3) there was a large increase in the proportion of units with excitatory responses to contralateral BBN. The increase was immediate and lasting. The latencies of the excitatory responses were at least 6 ms, consistent with activation by a path involving several synapses and inconsistent with cross talk. The latencies and rate-level functions of contralateral excitation were similar to those seen occasionally in normal hearing animals, suggesting an upregulation of an existing pathway. In conclusion, contralateral excitatory inputs to the VCN exist, which are not normally effective, and can compensate rapidly for large changes in afferent input.

scholarly journals Temporal resolution in children: comparing normal hearing, conductive hearing loss and auditory processing disorder

2009 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila Andreoli Balen ◽  
Letícia Bretzke ◽  
Carla Meller Mottecy ◽  
Graziela Liebel ◽  
Mirian Regina Moresco Boeno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Temporal Resolution ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Conductive Hearing

scholarly journals A Controlled Comparison of Auditory Steady-State Responses and Pure-Tone Audiometry in Patients with Hearing Loss

2017 ◽  
Vol 96 (10-11) ◽  
pp. E47-E52
Author(s):  
Raman Wadhera ◽  
Sharad Hernot ◽  
Sat Paul Gulati ◽  
Vijay Kalra
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Steady State ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone ◽  
Conductive Hearing Loss ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Hearing Thresholds ◽  
Conductive Hearing

We performed a prospective interventional study to evaluate correlations between hearing thresholds determined by pure-tone audiometry (PTA) and auditory steady-state response (ASSR) testing in two types of patients with hearing loss and a control group of persons with normal hearing. The study was conducted on 240 ears—80 ears with conductive hearing loss, 80 ears with sensorineural hearing loss, and 80 normal-hearing ears. We found that mean threshold differences between PTA results and ASSR testing at different frequencies did not exceed 15 dB in any group. Using Pearson correlation coefficient calculations, we determined that the two responses correlated better in patients with sensorineural hearing loss than in those with conductive hearing loss. We conclude that measuring ASSRs can be an excellent complement to other diagnostic methods in determining hearing thresholds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document