Journal of the American Academy of Audiology最新文献

Background:  The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic introduced a unique situation by consigning people to their homes, with free time for music listening, joined with increased anxiety and stress levels. The question arises whether listening habits to music have changed during the pandemic. Such a change in listening habits might pose a greater potential risk to hearing than in routine days.

Purpose:  To evaluate listening habits to music using earphones during the COVID-19 pandemic and assess if any change occurred in these habits compared with routine days before the pandemic.

Research design:  Self-reported listening habits were collected using a purpose-built questionnaire submitted online.

Study sample:  In total, the questionnaire was distributed among 242 young adults aged 18 to 30 years (mean: 24.3 ± 2.8). A total of 192 participants, regular listeners to music using earphones, provided information concerning their listening habits.

Data collection and analysis:  Collected listening habits included: listening levels, duration, and frequency of listening during the pandemic compared with routine days. Symptoms and circumstances that occurred following music listening were reported as well. We compared statistically listening habits of participants that stayed home during the pandemic versus those that kept their office routine. In addition, we performed statistical analysis on hearing symptoms following unsafe versus safe music listeners.

Results:  Most reported listening durations were 2 to 4 days (28.5%) and 7 days a week (29.7%), for at least 30 minutes, at high to very high listening levels, and volume control settings at 75 to 100%. Almost 50% of the participants reported a change in their listening habits during the pandemic, mainly a more frequent and longer listening duration. Overall, 29.1% of the participants were at potential risk of hearing loss due to unsafe listening habits.

Conclusion:  The change in listening habits during the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the need to monitor listening habits and raise awareness of the one cause for hearing loss that can be prevented.

Background:  The results of tests measuring objective speech intelligibility are similar to those measuring subjective speech intelligibility using speech materials with minimal context. It is unclear if such is the case with contextual materials.

Purpose:  This article compares objective and subjective intelligibility difference (OSID) between normal hearing (NH) and hearing impaired (HI) listeners in the unaided and aided modes using speech materials adapted from the Tracking of Noise Tolerance (TNT) test.

Research design:  Single-blind within-subjects design.

Study sample:  Twenty-four NH and 17 HI older adults.

Data collection and analysis:  Listeners completed the objective and subjective intelligibility measures at 75 and 82 dB sound pressure level (SPL) speech input levels. Five signal-to-noise ratios were tested to generate the objective and subjective speech intelligibility performance intensity (P-I) functions. Both NH and HI listeners were tested in the unaided mode. The HI listeners were also tested using their own hearing aids (HAs). Objective and subjective speech reception thresholds at a 50% criterion (SRT50s) were estimated from each individual P-I function. The difference between the objective SRT50 and subjective SRT50 was used to estimate OSID.

Results:  Objective and subjective SRT50s were significantly better in NH than in HI listeners (chi-square₍₁₎ = 26.29, p < 0.001) at each speech input level in the unaided mode. However, there was a significant interaction between listener group and intelligibility type (chi-square₍₁₎ = 9.43, p = 0.002) where SRT50s were lower for subjective than objective P-I functions only in the HI group. The SRT50s of HI listeners were also affected by hearing mode, where both objective and subjective intelligibility was improved when HI listeners were tested while wearing their own HAs. In general, objective and subjective SRT50s showed moderate-to-strong correlations across most combinations of listener groups and test conditions (r = 0.59-0.86, p < 0.01) except for HI listeners tested with their own HAs (r = 0.39, p = 0.128).

Conclusion:  Similar objective and subjective intelligibility was observed in NH listeners but better subjective intelligibility than objective intelligibility was noted in HI listeners when tested in the unaided and aided modes.

Introduction:  Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) has a prevalence of 58% in a traumatic brain injury (TBI) population. Research on idiopathic BPPV has demonstrated a higher prevalence of right-sided canal involvement. While many studies have investigated the epidemiology of canal involvement in BPPV in both idiopathic and traumatic BPPV (BPPV associated with a fall), there has been no assessment of trauma location as a predictor of the location of BPPV.

Objectives:  The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between the location of a focal TBI and canal involvement in BPPV.

Methods:  Patients who were admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation unit with a diagnosis of TBI were screened for BPPV. The primary outcome of this study was the side of the TBI, the BPPV type (posterior, horizontal, or anterior canal), and the side of the BPPV (right, left, or bilateral).

Results:  There were 42 people who had BPPV. Twenty-one had right-sided canal involvement, 14 had left-sided involvement, and 7 had bilateral involvement. Sixteen had right-side tissue involvement, 13 had left-side involvement, and 13 had bilateral involvement. There was no significant correlation between variables (χ²= 1.70, p = 0.80).

Conclusion:  All patients with a TBI should have all canals assessed for BPPV as there is no relationship between the side of focal damage and canal involvement.

Background:  This study evaluated the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the cochlea and auditory efferent system with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and contralateral suppression (CS).

Objective:  We aimed to evaluate the pre- and post-COVID-19 TEOAE and CS results in the same participants to reveal the effect of COVID-19 on the efferent auditory system.

Study design:  The CS measurement was performed twice for each participant before a diagnosis of COVID-19 and after treatment for COVID-19 as a within-subjects study design. All participants exhibited hearing thresholds below 25 dB HL at all frequencies and all participants demonstrated bilateral Type A tympanograms. The tests were performed in the linear mode using a double probe on the Otodynamics ILO292-II device. The CS of the otoacoustic emissions was measured at 65 dB peSPL TEOAE stimulus and 65 dB SPL broadband noise. All parameters including reproducibility, noise, and stability were considered during the measurements.

Study samples:  The study included 11 patients (eight females and three males) aged between 20 and 35 years (mean age, 26 ± 3.66).

Data collection and analysis:  Wilcoxon signed rank test and Spearman's correlation test were used for statistical analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 23.0.

Results:  The Wilcoxon signed rank test showed that there was no significant difference between the pre-and post-COVID-19 TEOAE CS results in all tested frequencies and measurement parameters, 1000 to 4000 Hz, Z = -0.356, -0.089, -0.533, -0.533, -1.156, and p < 0.05. Although not statistically significant, the CS results obtained post-COVID-19 at all frequencies, except 4000 Hz, were lower than those before COVID-19. According to the overall TEOAE results after COVID-19, a statistically significant decrease was observed at 3000 Hz (Z = -2.847, p < 0.01) and 4000 Hz (Z = -2.401, p < 0.05) compared with the premeasurement.

Conclusion:  The study findings show that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 can affect the cochlea and the auditory efferent system in adults. Post-COVID-19 audiological evaluation can also be considered part of a general medical examination.

Background:  Exploding head syndrome (EHS) is characterized by hearing a sudden loud noise or experiencing a sense of explosion in head during the transition of sleep-wake or wake-sleep. The experience of EHS shares similarities with tinnitus, where an individual perceives a sound without any external sound source. To the authors' knowledge, the possible relationship between EHS and tinnitus has not been explored.

Purpose:  Preliminary assessment of prevalence of EHS and its related factors among patients seeking help for tinnitus and/or hyperacusis.

Research design:  Retrospective cross-sectional study.

Study sample:  A total of 148 consecutive patients who sought help for tinnitus and/or hyperacusis at an audiology clinic in the United Kingdom.

Data collection and analysis:  The data regarding demographics, medical history, audiological measures, and self-report questionnaires were collected retrospectively from the patients' records. Audiological measures comprised of pure-tone audiometry and uncomfortable loudness levels. The self-report questionnaires which were administered as a part of standard care comprised of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, numeric rating scale of tinnitus loudness, annoyance, and effect on life, hyperacusis questionnaire, Insomnia Severity Index, Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale 7, and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). To establish presence of EHS, participants were asked "Do you ever hear a sudden, loud noise, or feel a sense of explosion in your head at night?"

Results:  EHS was reported by 8.1% of patients with tinnitus and/or hyperacusis (12 out of 148). The patients with and without EHS were compared, but no significant relationships were found, between the presence of EHS and age, gender, tinnitus/hyperacusis distress, symptoms of anxiety or depression, sleep difficulties, or audiological measures.

Conclusion:  The prevalence of EHS in a tinnitus and hyperacusis population is similar to that in the general population. While there does not seem to be any association with sleep or mental factors, this might be due to the limited variability in our clinical sample (i.e., most patients exhibited high level of distress regardless of EHS). Replication of the results in a larger sample with more variety of symptom severity is warranted.

Background:  Vestibular migraine is associated with vertigo, persistent swaying, tilting, and disorientation, which suggests a heightened sensitivity of the neural mechanisms subserving spatial orientation. Whether a heightened sense of motion to vestibular stimulation in vestibular migraine is associated with sensitivity to visual motion (visual dependency) or physical motion (motion sickness susceptibility) is unclear.

Purpose:  The aim of this study was to explore whether a heightened sense of self-motion sensitivity in vestibular migraine is associated with visual dependency or motion sickness susceptibility.

Study design:  This is a prospective cross-over study.

Study sample:  Fifteen participants with vestibular migraine and 20 healthy controls (all right handed) were included in this study.

Data collection and analysis:  In the main experiment, participants were asked to align a rod to the perceived head position. Head tilt was generated by DC galvanic vestibular stimulation at 1 mA to produce head tilts to the right (left anodal/right cathodal stimulation, LA/RC) or left (right anodal/left cathodal, RA/LC). The perception of head tilt was measured in a dark room using laptop software that allowed participants to turn an illuminated rod to any angle about the midpoint. Participants were instructed to align the rod to the perceived head position before and during galvanic stimulation and the line angle was saved. Head position was objectively monitored with an ultrasound motion system. After completing the perceptual test, visual dependency was measured with a static and rotating background and the Motion Sickness Susceptibility Questionnaire (MSSQ) was completed.

Results:  In an upright head position, without stimulation, the perceived head position was 1.1 degrees in controls and -0.69 degrees in vestibular migraine participants with no significant difference between groups. During galvanic vestibular stimulation, participants with vestibular migraine had an increased perception of head tilt compared with controls (RA/LC: controls -4.7 degrees and vestibular migraine -9.29, p = 0.002; and LA/RC: controls 6.5 degrees and vestibular migraine 11.12 degrees, p = 0.017), although the size of head movement was similar between groups. The average perception of head tilt correlated to the MSSQ score, but not to the degree of visual dependency in a static or moving background.

Conclusion:  A heightened sensitivity of the vestibular system to vestibular stimulation in vestibular migraine is consistent with reports of self-motion sensitivity in vestibular migraine.