Re: [AUDITORY] National Hearing Test (Christine Tan )

Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] National Hearing Test From: Christine Tan <Christine.Tan@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 06:38:30 +0000 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY> --_000_3569409D6FBD9E4591C40F6F17ABD4C83395036A9CEXCMB2wolfson_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Dick, We looked at some of the points that Enrique highlighted (reduced compressi= on, broad filters) in the context of tinnitus and found that the amount of = cochlear damage in the hearing impaired can be seemingly grouped by whether= or not tinnitus is perceived. Hearing impaired individuals with perceivable tinnitus were found to have b= etter frequency selectivity and measures of compression (using Enrique's TM= C method) compared to hearing impaired individuals who did not report tinni= tus. Of course repeats of the experiment are necessary and it is a far leap to b= e able to claim that one group has more OHC damage compared to the other, b= ut the current theories of deafferentation and tinnitus, as well as some of= our initial model simulations (not in the paper) point in that direction. Link to the paper is attached: http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/department/people/Lecluyse_files/Tan%20et= %20al.%20(2013).pdf Best wishes, Christine From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= ILL.CA] On Behalf Of Richard F. Lyon Sent: Thursday, 7 November 2013 5:02 AM To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] National Hearing Test Enrique, thanks for your reply. That sounds like an excellent theory, and = a good experiment that you did with the simulation. It makes sense that hair cell and afferent damage would be correlated, but = not completely so. It would be great to see tests that address each of the= se specifically. I suppose the audiogram pretty much addresses OHC damage,= and the SNR tests address mostly other losses, which may be primarily deaf= ferentation. I expect we'll make more specific tests to separate types of = damage, over time. Dick On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Enrique A. Lopez Poveda <ealopezpoveda@xxxxxxxx= .es<mailto:ealopezpoveda@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: Hi Dick: Your questions are, as usual, 'spot on' and in tune with my way of thinking. While there is evidence (some of it highlighted by Pierre and Bill) of degr= aded performance at high levels for normal hearing listeners, I would argue= that the degradation is comparatively less for normal-hearing listeners th= an for hearing-impaired listeners, even though as you said normal-hearing a= nd hearing-impaired listeners share common cochlear mechanical properties a= t high levels. Also, a paper just published (Gregan et al. 2013 JASA) sugge= sts little correlation between residual compression and masking release. Th= erefore, I think that reduced compression and broader filters can explain o= nly a (small) part of the difficulty experienced by hearing-impaired at und= erstanding speech in noise. The question is what explains the other (larger= ) part. I think the answer is 'deafferentation'. We know that age is a separate contributor to degraded performance in noise= that adds on to hearing impairment. This is beautifully shown by Table I o= f Peters et al. (1998, JASA 103:577-587). What I find most interesting, how= ever, is that age leads to auditory nerve deafferentation (Makary et al. 20= 11, JARO) and deafferentation also occurs after noise exposure (see Kujawa = and Liberman 2009) even in clinically-normal individuals. Therefore, it is = very likely that deafferentation occurs even more frequently and significan= tly for hearing-impaired individuals. We have recently shown (Lopez-Poveda = and Barrios 2013 Front. Neurosci.) that degradation of the acoustic signal = inspired by deafferentation can impair speech intelligibility in noise but = much less so in quiet without altering audiometric thresholds. Altogether, = this makes me think that deafferentation is a common, underlying cause of d= egraded peformance in noise for both hearing-impaired listeners and (audiom= etrically-normal) aged listeners. What is more, I would dare saying that de= afferentation degrades performance in noise more than does reduced frequenc= y selectivity (broader filters) and/or reduced compression. The mechanism o= f how deafferentation would degrade performance in noise is described in ou= r paper (Lopez-Poveda and Barrios 2013 Front. Neurosci.). That's my current thinking, anyhow, and here are some relevant references: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/45/14077.long http://jn.physiology.org/content/110/3/577.long http://www.frontiersin.org/Auditory_Cognitive_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnins.20= 13.00124/abstract http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.421128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4818773 Cheers, - Enrique Privacy & Confidentiality Notice ------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachments contain privileged and confidential inform= ation that is intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If= you are not an intended recipient you must not: read; copy; distribute; di= scuss; take any action in or make any reliance upon the contents of this me= ssage; nor open or read any attachment. If you have received this message i= n error, please notify us as soon as possible on the following telephone nu= mber and destroy this message including any attachments. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------- Wolfson Microelectronics plc Tel: +44 (0)131 272 7000 Fax: +44 (0)131 272 7001 Web: www.wolfsonmicro.com Registered in Scotland Company number SC089839 Registered office:=20 Westfield House, 26 Westfield Road, Edinburgh, EH11 2QB, UK --_000_3569409D6FBD9E4591C40F6F17ABD4C83395036A9CEXCMB2wolfson_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr= osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns=3D"http:= //www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content= =3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"><meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Micros= oft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=3DEN-AU link=3Dblue vli= nk=3Dpurple><div class=3DWordSection1>Hi Dick,<= o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p></= p>We looked at some of the points that Enrique = highlighted (reduced compression, broad filters) in the context of tinnitus= and found that the amount of cochlear damage in the hearing impaired can b= e seemingly grouped by whether or not tinnitus is perceived.<o:p></o:p></sp= an><o:p> </o:p>Hearing impaired individuals with perceivable tinnitus were= found to have better frequency selectivity and measures of compression (us= ing Enrique’s TMC method) compared to hearing impaired individuals wh= o did not report tinnitus.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Of course repeats = of the experiment are necessary and it is a far leap to be able to claim th= at one group has more OHC damage compared to the other, but the current the= ories of deafferentation and tinnitus, as well as some of our initial model= simulations (not in the paper) point in that direction.<o:p></o:p><= /p><o:p> </o:p>Link to the paper is attached:<o:p></o:p><a href=3D"http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/department/pe= ople/Lecluyse_files/Tan%20et%20al.%20(2013).pdf">http://www.essex.ac.uk/psy= chology/department/people/Lecluyse_files/Tan%20et%20al.%20(2013).pdf</a><o:= p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>= Best wishes,<o:p></o:p>Christine<o:p></o:p><= o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p></s= pan><o:p> </o:p>From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Per= ception [mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Richard F. Ly= on Sent: Thursday, 7 November 2013 5:02 AM To: AUDITORY= @xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] National Hearing Test<o:= p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div><div><div= >Enrique, thanks for yo= ur reply.  That sounds like an excellent theory, and a good experiment= that you did with the simulation.<o:p></o:p></div>It makes sense that hair cell and afferent = damage would be correlated, but not completely so.  It would be great = to see tests that address each of these specifically.  I suppose the a= udiogram pretty much addresses OHC damage, and the SNR tests address mostly= other losses, which may be primarily deafferentation.  I expect we'll= make more specific tests to separate types of damage, over time.<o:p></o:p= ></div>Dick<o:p></o= :p><div><div><div><= o:p> </o:p><div>On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:11 A= M, Enrique A. Lopez Poveda <<a href=3D"mailto:ealopezpoveda@xxxxxxxx" tar= get=3D"_blank">ealopezpoveda@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div><div>Hi Dick: Your questions are, as usual, 'spot on= ' and in tune with my way of thinking. While there is evidence (some= of it highlighted by Pierre and Bill) of degraded performance at high leve= ls for normal hearing listeners, I would argue that the degradation is comp= aratively less for normal-hearing listeners than for hearing-impaired liste= ners, even though as you said normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners= share common cochlear mechanical properties at high levels. Also, a paper = just published (Gregan et al. 2013 JASA) suggests little correlation betwee= n residual compression and masking release. Therefore, I think that reduced= compression and broader filters can explain only a (small) part of the dif= ficulty experienced by hearing-impaired at understanding speech in noise. T= he question is what explains the other (larger) part. I think the answer is= 'deafferentation'. We know that age is a separate contributor to de= graded performance in noise that adds on to hearing impairment. This is bea= utifully shown by Table I of Peters et al. (1998, JASA 103:577-587). What I= find most interesting, however, is that age leads to auditory nerve deaffe= rentation (Makary et al. 2011, JARO) and deafferentation also occurs after = noise exposure (see Kujawa and Liberman 2009) even in clinically-normal ind= ividuals. Therefore, it is very likely that deafferentation occurs even mor= e frequently and significantly for hearing-impaired individuals. We have re= cently shown (Lopez-Poveda and Barrios 2013 Front. Neurosci.) that degradat= ion of the acoustic signal inspired by deafferentation can impair speech in= telligibility in noise but much less so in quiet without altering audiometr= ic thresholds. Altogether, this makes me think that deafferentation is a co= mmon, underlying cause of degraded peformance in noise for both hearing-imp= aired listeners and (audiometrically-normal) aged listeners. What is more, = I would dare saying that deafferentation degrades performance in noise more= than does reduced frequency selectivity (broader filters) and/or reduced c= ompression. The mechanism of how deafferentation would degrade performance = in noise is described in our paper (Lopez-Poveda and Barrios 2013 Front. Ne= urosci.). That's my current thinking, anyhow, and here are some rele= vant references: <a href=3D"http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/45/1= 4077.long" target=3D"_blank">http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/45/14077.l= ong</a> <a href=3D"http://jn.physiology.org/content/110/3/577.long" tar= get=3D"_blank">http://jn.physiology.org/content/110/3/577.long</a> <a hr= ef=3D"http://www.frontiersin.org/Auditory_Cognitive_Neuroscience/10.3389/fn= ins.2013.00124/abstract" target=3D"_blank">http://www.frontiersin.org/Audit= ory_Cognitive_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnins.2013.00124/abstract</a> <a hre= f=3D"http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.421128" target=3D"_blank" title=3D"Go to D= OI for
 this Article">http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.421128<= /a> <a href=3D"http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4818773" target=3D"_blank" ti= tle=3D"Go to DOI
 for this Article">http://dx.doi.org/10.= 1121/1.4818773</a> Cheers, - Enrique<o:p></o:p></div></di= v></div></div></div></div></div></div>Privacy & Confidentiality Notice= ---------------------------------= ----------------Thi= s message and any attachments contain privileged and confidential informati= on that is intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If yo= u are not an intended recipient you must not: read; copy; distribute; discu= ss; take any action in or make any reliance upon the contents of this messa= ge; nor open or read any attachment. If you have received this message in e= rror, please notify us as soon as possible on the following telephone numbe= r and destroy this message including any attachments. Thank you.= ------------------------------= -------------------= Wolfson Microelectronics plcTel: +44 = (0)131 272 7000Fax: +44 (0)131= 272 7001Web= : www.wolfsonmicro.comRegistered in ScotlandCompany number SC089839Registered office:Westfield House, 26 Westfield Road, Edinburgh, EH11 2QB, UK= </body></html> --_000_3569409D6FBD9E4591C40F6F17ABD4C83395036A9CEXCMB2wolfson_--

This message came from the mail archive
/var/www/postings/2013/
maintained by:

DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University