The audiogram: Detection of pure-tone stimuli in ototoxicity monitoring and assessments of investigational medicines for the inner ear

Effects of Stimulus Type on 16-kHz Detection Thresholds

OBJECTIVES

Audiometric testing typically does not include frequencies above 8 kHz. However, recent research suggests that extended high-frequency (EHF) sensitivity could affect hearing in natural communication environments. Clinical assessment of hearing often employs pure tones and frequency-modulated (FM) tones interchangeably regardless of frequency. The present study was designed to evaluate how the stimulus chosen to measure EHF thresholds affects estimates of hearing sensitivity.

DESIGN

The first experiment used standard audiometric procedures to measure 8- and 16-kHz thresholds for 5- to 28-year olds with normal hearing in the standard audiometric range (250 to 8000 Hz). Stimuli were steady tones, pulsed tones, and FM tones. The second experiment tested 18- to 28-year olds with normal hearing in the standard audiometric range using psychophysical procedures to evaluate how changes in sensitivity as a function of frequency affect detection of stimuli that differ with respect to bandwidth, including bands of noise. Thresholds were measured using steady tones, pulsed tones, FM tones, narrow bands of noise, and one-third-octave bands of noise at a range of center frequencies in one ear.

RESULTS

In experiment 1, thresholds improved with increasing age at 8 kHz and worsened with increasing age at 16 kHz. Thresholds for individual participants were relatively similar for steady, pulsed, and FM tones at 8 kHz. At 16 kHz, mean thresholds were approximately 5 dB lower for FM tones than for steady or pulsed tones. This stimulus effect did not differ as a function of age. Experiment 2 replicated this greater stimulus effect at 16 kHz than at 8 kHz and showed that the slope of the audibility curve accounted for these effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to prior expectations, there was no evidence that the choice of stimulus type affected school-age children more than adults. For individual participants, audiometric thresholds at 16 kHz were as much as 20 dB lower for FM tones than for steady tones. Threshold differences across stimuli at 16 kHz were predicted by differences in audibility across frequency, which can vary markedly between listeners. These results highlight the importance of considering spectral width of the stimulus used to evaluate EHF thresholds.

Easy as 1-2-3: Development and Evaluation of a Simple yet Valid Audiogram-Classification System

Almost since the inception of the modern-day electroacoustic audiometer a century ago the results of pure-tone audiometry have been characterized by an audiogram. For almost as many years, clinicians and researchers have sought ways to distill the volume and complexity of information on the audiogram. Commonly used approaches have made use of pure-tone averages (PTAs) for various frequency ranges with the PTA for 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz (PTA4) being the most widely used for the categorization of hearing loss severity. Here, a three-digit triad is proposed as a single-number summary of not only the severity, but also the configuration and bilateral symmetry of the hearing loss. Each digit in the triad ranges from 0 to 9, increasing as the level of the pure-tone hearing threshold level (HTL) increases from a range of optimal hearing (< 10 dB Hearing Level; HL) to complete hearing loss (≥ 90 dB HL). Each digit also represents a different frequency region of the audiogram proceeding from left to right as: (Low, L) PTA for 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz; (Center, C) PTA for 3000, 4000 and 6000 Hz; and (High, H) HTL at 8000 Hz. This LCH Triad audiogram-classification system is evaluated using a large United States (U.S.) national dataset (N = 8,795) from adults 20 to 80 + years of age and two large clinical datasets totaling 8,254 adults covering a similar age range. Its ability to capture variations in hearing function was found to be superior to that of the widely used PTA4.

Hearing thresholds for "otologically normal" adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2011-12 and 2015-16

Hearing threshold levels (HTLs) get worse with advancing age in adults. Publications of nationally representative data from U.S. adults have been confined to HTLs from unscreened individuals. ISO 7029:2017 provides equations for the hearing loss of adults of various ages. Equations were generated from a synthesis of international studies of HTLs for "otologically normal" or screened adults. No nationally representative data for screened U.S. adults were included in the ISO synthesis. This study investigated three different levels of screening rigor, referred to here as Screened, Screened+, and Screened++. Median HTLs are provided for Screened (N = 1545) and Screened++ (N = 795) groups from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys for 2011-12 and 2015-16, the two most recent surveys of adults from 20 to 69 years of age with audiograms. Median HTLs from the Screened and Screened++ groups differed slightly between the sexes, were not affected by race/ethnicity, and increased substantially with age. For young adults, there were no differences in HTLs between screened (any level) and unscreened adults, but such differences in HTLs increased with advancing age, especially at higher frequencies. The default power-function model from ISO 7029:2017 did not provide a good description of the median age-associated HTLs from screened U.S. adults.

Preclinical prospects of investigational agents for hearing loss treatment

INTRODUCTION

: Hearing loss has a high prevalence, with aging, noise exposure, ototoxic drug therapies, and genetic mutations being some of the leading causes of hearing loss. Health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes are associated with hearing loss, perhaps due to shared vascular pathology in the ear and in other tissues.

AREAS COVERED

: Issues in the design of preclinical research preclude the ability to make comparisons regarding the relative efficacy of different drugs of interest for possible hearing loss prevention or hearing restoration. This has not slowed the advancement of candidate therapeutics into human clinical testing. There is a robust pipeline with drugs that have different mechanisms of action providing diverse candidate therapies and opportunities for combination therapies to be considered.

EXPERT OPINION

: Much of the preclinical research literature lacks standard study design elements such as dose response testing, and lack of standardization of test protocols significantly limits conclusions regarding relative efficacy. Nonetheless, the many positive results to date have supported translation of preclinical efforts into clinical trials assessing potential human benefits. Approval of the first hearing loss prevention therapeutic is a major success, providing a pathway for other drugs to follow.

Noise-induced hearing disorders: Clinical and investigational tools

A series of articles discussing advanced diagnostics that can be used to assess noise injury and associated noise-induced hearing disorders (NIHD) was developed under the umbrella of the United States Department of Defense Hearing Center of Excellence Pharmaceutical Interventions for Hearing Loss working group. The overarching goals of the current series were to provide insight into (1) well-established and more recently developed metrics that are sensitive for detection of cochlear pathology or diagnosis of NIHD, and (2) the tools that are available for characterizing individual noise hazard as personal exposure will vary based on distance to the sound source and placement of hearing protection devices. In addition to discussing the utility of advanced diagnostics in patient care settings, the current articles discuss the selection of outcomes and end points that can be considered for use in clinical trials investigating hearing loss prevention and hearing rehabilitation.

Evolution of the candidacy requirements and patient perioperative assessment protocols for cochlear implantation

Cochlear implantation as an approved clinical therapy ushered in an exciting era of innovation for the treatment of hearing loss. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of cochlear implants as a treatment option for adults with profound sensorineural hearing loss in 1985. The landscape for treating adults and children with significant hearing loss has changed dramatically over the last three decades. The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolving regulatory process and changes to clinical care. A significant emerging trend in cochlear implantation is the consideration of steroids to preserve hearing during and following surgery. This parallels the quest for hearing preservation in noise-induced hearing disorders, especially considering the current interest in biological drug therapies in this population. The future will likely usher in an era of combination therapeutics utilizing drugs and cochlear implantation. For over 30+ years and following regulatory compliance, the Rocky Mountain Ear Center has developed an extensive candidacy and outcome assessment protocol. This systematic approach evaluates both unaided and aided auditory performance during candidacy stages and post-implantation. Adjunctive measures of cognition and quality-of-life augment the auditory assessment in specific populations. Practical insights into lessons learned have directed further clinical research and have resulted in beneficial changes to clinical care.

Evaluation of hidden hearing loss in normal-hearing firearm users

Some noise exposures resulting in temporary threshold shift (TTS) result in cochlear synaptopathy. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate a human population that might be at risk for noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy (i.e., "hidden hearing loss"). Participants were firearm users who were (1) at-risk for prior audiometric noise-induced threshold shifts, given their history of firearm use, (2) likely to have experienced complete threshold recovery if any prior TTS had occurred, based on this study's normal-hearing inclusion criteria, and (3) not at-risk for significant age-related synaptopathic loss, based on this study's young-adult inclusion criteria. 70 participants (age 18-25 yr) were enrolled, including 33 firearm users experimental (EXP), and 37 non-firearm users control (CNTRL). All participants were required to exhibit audiometric thresholds ≤20 dB HL bilaterally, from 0.25 to 8 kHz. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that EXP participants would exhibit a reduced cochlear nerve response compared to CNTRL participants, despite normal-hearing sensitivity in both groups. No statistically significant group differences in auditory performance were detected between the CNTRL and EXP participants on standard audiom to etry, extended high-frequency audiometry, Words-in-Noise performance, distortion product otoacoustic emission, middle ear muscle reflex, or auditory brainstem response. Importantly, 91% of EXP participants reported that they wore hearing protection either "all the time" or "almost all the time" while using firearms. The data suggest that consistent use of hearing protection during firearm use can effectively protect cochlear and neural measures of auditory function, including suprathreshold responses. The current results do not exclude the possibility that neural pathology may be evident in firearm users with less consistent hearing protection use. However, firearm users with less consistent hearing protection use are also more likely to exhibit threshold elevation, among other cochlear deficits, thereby confounding the isolation of any potentially selective neural deficits. Taken together, it seems most likely that firearm users who consistently and correctly use hearing protection will exhibit preserved measures of cochlear and neural function, while firearm users who inconsistently and incorrectly use hearing protection are most likely to exhibit cochlear injury, rather than evidence of selective neural injury in the absence of cochlear injury.