使用稳定和脉冲噪声诱发器识别内侧耳蜗反射、中耳肌肉反射和噪声句子之间的联系

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Ian B. Mertes
{"title":"使用稳定和脉冲噪声诱发器识别内侧耳蜗反射、中耳肌肉反射和噪声句子之间的联系","authors":"Ian B. Mertes","doi":"10.1016/j.heares.2024.109108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The middle-ear muscle reflex (MEMR) and medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR) modify peripheral auditory function, which may reduce masking and improve speech-in-noise (SIN) recognition. Previous work and our pilot data suggest that the two reflexes respond differently to static versus dynamic noise elicitors. However, little is known about how the two reflexes work in tandem to contribute to SIN recognition. We hypothesized that SIN recognition would be significantly correlated with the strength of the MEMR and with the strength of the MOCR. Additionally, we hypothesized that SIN recognition would be best when both reflexes were activated. A total of 43 healthy, normal-hearing adults met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (35 females, age range: 19–29 years). MEMR strength was assessed using wideband absorbance. MOCR strength was assessed using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. SIN recognition was assessed using a modified version of the QuickSIN. All measurements were made with and without two types of contralateral noise elicitors (steady and pulsed) at two levels (50 and 65 dB SPL). Steady noise was used to primarily elicit the MOCR and pulsed noise was used to elicit both reflexes. Two baseline conditions without a contralateral elicitor were also obtained. Results revealed differences in how the MEMR and MOCR responded to elicitor type and level. Contrary to hypotheses, SIN recognition was not significantly improved in the presence of any contralateral elicitors relative to the baseline conditions. Additionally, there were no significant correlations between MEMR strength and SIN recognition, or between MOCR strength and SIN recognition. MEMR and MOCR strength were significantly correlated for pulsed noise elicitors but not steady noise elicitors. Results suggest no association between SIN recognition and the MEMR or MOCR, at least as measured and analyzed in this study. SIN recognition may have been influenced by factors not accounted for in this study, such as contextual cues, warranting further study.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"453 ","pages":"Article 109108"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378595524001618/pdfft?md5=4b4a643db9dc56ffa4b517051f3620fd&pid=1-s2.0-S0378595524001618-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Associations between the medial olivocochlear reflex, middle-ear muscle reflex, and sentence-in-noise recognition using steady and pulsed noise elicitors\",\"authors\":\"Ian B. Mertes\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.heares.2024.109108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The middle-ear muscle reflex (MEMR) and medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR) modify peripheral auditory function, which may reduce masking and improve speech-in-noise (SIN) recognition. Previous work and our pilot data suggest that the two reflexes respond differently to static versus dynamic noise elicitors. However, little is known about how the two reflexes work in tandem to contribute to SIN recognition. We hypothesized that SIN recognition would be significantly correlated with the strength of the MEMR and with the strength of the MOCR. Additionally, we hypothesized that SIN recognition would be best when both reflexes were activated. A total of 43 healthy, normal-hearing adults met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (35 females, age range: 19–29 years). MEMR strength was assessed using wideband absorbance. MOCR strength was assessed using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. SIN recognition was assessed using a modified version of the QuickSIN. All measurements were made with and without two types of contralateral noise elicitors (steady and pulsed) at two levels (50 and 65 dB SPL). Steady noise was used to primarily elicit the MOCR and pulsed noise was used to elicit both reflexes. Two baseline conditions without a contralateral elicitor were also obtained. Results revealed differences in how the MEMR and MOCR responded to elicitor type and level. Contrary to hypotheses, SIN recognition was not significantly improved in the presence of any contralateral elicitors relative to the baseline conditions. Additionally, there were no significant correlations between MEMR strength and SIN recognition, or between MOCR strength and SIN recognition. MEMR and MOCR strength were significantly correlated for pulsed noise elicitors but not steady noise elicitors. Results suggest no association between SIN recognition and the MEMR or MOCR, at least as measured and analyzed in this study. SIN recognition may have been influenced by factors not accounted for in this study, such as contextual cues, warranting further study.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":\"453 \",\"pages\":\"Article 109108\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378595524001618/pdfft?md5=4b4a643db9dc56ffa4b517051f3620fd&pid=1-s2.0-S0378595524001618-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378595524001618\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378595524001618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

中耳肌肉反射(MEMR)和内侧耳蜗反射(MOCR)可改变外周听觉功能,从而减少掩蔽并提高噪声语音(SIN)识别能力。以前的工作和我们的试验数据表明,这两种反射对静态和动态噪声诱导剂的反应不同。然而,人们对这两种反射如何协同作用以促进 SIN 识别却知之甚少。我们假设 SIN 识别与 MEMR 强度和 MOCR 强度显著相关。此外,我们还假设当这两种反射都被激活时,SIN 识别效果最佳。共有 43 名健康、听力正常的成年人符合纳入/排除标准(35 名女性,年龄范围:19-29 岁)。MEMR 强度使用宽带吸光度进行评估。MOCR 强度使用瞬态诱发耳声发射进行评估。SIN 识别率使用 QuickSIN 的改进版进行评估。所有测量均在两种水平(50 和 65 dB SPL)的两种对侧噪声诱发器(稳定噪声和脉冲噪声)下进行。稳定噪声主要用于诱发 MOCR,脉冲噪声则用于诱发两种反射。此外,还获得了两个没有对侧激发器的基线条件。结果显示,MEMR 和 MOCR 对激发器类型和水平的反应存在差异。与假设相反,与基线条件相比,在存在任何对侧诱发因素的情况下,SIN 识别能力并没有明显提高。此外,MEMR 强度与 SIN 识别率之间或 MOCR 强度与 SIN 识别率之间没有明显的相关性。MEMR 和 MOCR 强度与脉冲噪声诱导物显著相关,但与稳定噪声诱导物不相关。结果表明,至少在本研究的测量和分析中,SIN 识别与 MEMR 或 MOCR 之间没有关联。SIN 识别可能受到本研究未考虑的因素(如上下文线索)的影响,值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Associations between the medial olivocochlear reflex, middle-ear muscle reflex, and sentence-in-noise recognition using steady and pulsed noise elicitors

The middle-ear muscle reflex (MEMR) and medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR) modify peripheral auditory function, which may reduce masking and improve speech-in-noise (SIN) recognition. Previous work and our pilot data suggest that the two reflexes respond differently to static versus dynamic noise elicitors. However, little is known about how the two reflexes work in tandem to contribute to SIN recognition. We hypothesized that SIN recognition would be significantly correlated with the strength of the MEMR and with the strength of the MOCR. Additionally, we hypothesized that SIN recognition would be best when both reflexes were activated. A total of 43 healthy, normal-hearing adults met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (35 females, age range: 19–29 years). MEMR strength was assessed using wideband absorbance. MOCR strength was assessed using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. SIN recognition was assessed using a modified version of the QuickSIN. All measurements were made with and without two types of contralateral noise elicitors (steady and pulsed) at two levels (50 and 65 dB SPL). Steady noise was used to primarily elicit the MOCR and pulsed noise was used to elicit both reflexes. Two baseline conditions without a contralateral elicitor were also obtained. Results revealed differences in how the MEMR and MOCR responded to elicitor type and level. Contrary to hypotheses, SIN recognition was not significantly improved in the presence of any contralateral elicitors relative to the baseline conditions. Additionally, there were no significant correlations between MEMR strength and SIN recognition, or between MOCR strength and SIN recognition. MEMR and MOCR strength were significantly correlated for pulsed noise elicitors but not steady noise elicitors. Results suggest no association between SIN recognition and the MEMR or MOCR, at least as measured and analyzed in this study. SIN recognition may have been influenced by factors not accounted for in this study, such as contextual cues, warranting further study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信