The effects of preceding sound and stimulus duration on measures of suppression in younger and older adults.

Erica L Hegland, Elizabeth A Strickland
Author Information
  1. Erica L Hegland: Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA.
  2. Elizabeth A Strickland: Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA.

Abstract

Despite clinically normal audiometric thresholds, some older adults may experience difficulty in tasks such as understanding speech in a noisy environment. One potential reason may be reduced cochlear nonlinearity. A sensitive measure of cochlear nonlinearity is two-tone suppression, which is a reduction in the auditory system's response to one tone in the presence of a second tone. Previous research has been mixed on whether suppression decreases with age in humans. Studies of efferent cochlear gain reduction also suggest that stimulus duration should be considered in measuring suppression. In the present study, suppression was first measured psychoacoustically using stimuli that were too short to result in gain reduction. The potential effect of efferent cochlear gain reduction was then measured by using longer stimuli and presenting tonal or noise precursors before the shorter stimuli. Younger adults (ages 19-22 yr) and older adults (ages 57+ yr) with clinically normal hearing were tested. Suppression estimates decreased with longer stimuli or preceding sound which included the signal frequency, but did not decrease with preceding sound at the suppressor frequency. On average, the older group had lower suppression than the younger group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

References

  1. J Neurophysiol. 1993 Dec;70(6):2533-49 [PMID: 8120597]
  2. Audiology. 1992;31(1):1-7 [PMID: 1554329]
  3. Hear Res. 1990 May;45(3):221-36 [PMID: 2358415]
  4. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Dec;118(6):3823-33 [PMID: 16419827]
  5. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Jun;109(6):2955-63 [PMID: 11425137]
  6. Hear Res. 1994 Jun 15;77(1-2):1-8 [PMID: 7928721]
  7. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Jun;87(6):2634-42 [PMID: 2373798]
  8. Exp Gerontol. 2003 Jan-Feb;38(1-2):87-94 [PMID: 12543265]
  9. Int J Audiol. 2003 Apr;42(3):132-9 [PMID: 12705778]
  10. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2009 Sep;10(3):459-70 [PMID: 19263165]
  11. J Acoust Soc Am. 1985 Oct;78(4):1231-5 [PMID: 4056217]
  12. Front Psychol. 2015 Oct 12;6:1498 [PMID: 26528199]
  13. J Acoust Soc Am. 1980 Mar;67(3):914-27 [PMID: 7358916]
  14. J Neurophysiol. 1987 Apr;57(4):1002-21 [PMID: 3585452]
  15. J Acoust Soc Am. 1981 May;69(5):1374-85 [PMID: 7240567]
  16. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Aug;116(2):1126-34 [PMID: 15376678]
  17. J Neurosci. 2014 Nov 12;34(46):15319-26 [PMID: 25392499]
  18. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Feb;103(2):1067-74 [PMID: 9479760]
  19. J Acoust Soc Am. 2014 Mar;135(3):1321-34 [PMID: 24606271]
  20. J Neurophysiol. 2012 Mar;107(6):1598-611 [PMID: 22190630]
  21. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007 Jun;8(2):280-93 [PMID: 17453307]
  22. Int J Audiol. 2005 Feb;44(2):118-29 [PMID: 15913160]
  23. Hear Res. 2010 Jun 1;264(1-2):56-62 [PMID: 20006694]
  24. J Neurophysiol. 1992 Oct;68(4):1087-99 [PMID: 1432070]
  25. J Physiol. 2006 Oct 1;576(Pt 1):49-54 [PMID: 16901947]
  26. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Oct;132(4):2497-513 [PMID: 23039444]
  27. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992 May;91(5):2865-71 [PMID: 1629479]
  28. J Acoust Soc Am. 1968 May;43(5):1120-8 [PMID: 5648103]
  29. J Acoust Soc Am. 1991 Jun;89(6):2843-50 [PMID: 1918628]
  30. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Aug;110(2):1049-57 [PMID: 11519573]
  31. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Aug;110(2):1058-66 [PMID: 11519574]
  32. J Acoust Soc Am. 1971 Feb;49(2):Suppl 2:467+ [PMID: 5541744]
  33. Audiol Neurootol. 2008;13(5):328-34 [PMID: 18460868]
  34. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 Mar;121(3):359-65 [PMID: 20005159]
  35. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Jul;114(1):322-32 [PMID: 12880044]
  36. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Jun;123(6):4352-7 [PMID: 18537386]
  37. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993 Sep;94(3 Pt 1):1269-74 [PMID: 8408966]
  38. J Acoust Soc Am. 1976 Jun;59(6):1460-70 [PMID: 939879]
  39. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 May;121(5 Pt1):2832-41 [PMID: 17550182]
  40. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Apr;115(4):1684-95 [PMID: 15101647]
  41. Laryngoscope. 2003 Oct;113(10):1707-13 [PMID: 14520094]
  42. Mol Neurodegener. 2010 Nov 26;5:53 [PMID: 21110869]
  43. J Neurophysiol. 1980 May;43(5):1390-405 [PMID: 7373369]
  44. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Jan;105(1):326-38 [PMID: 9921659]
  45. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 Nov;100(5):3275-85 [PMID: 8914310]
  46. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Oct;110(4):2108-19 [PMID: 11681388]
  47. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2015 Apr;16(2):241-53 [PMID: 25468405]
  48. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Nov;118(5):3211-7 [PMID: 16334697]
  49. J Neurophysiol. 2009 Mar;101(3):1394-406 [PMID: 19118109]
  50. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 May;99(5):3246-8 [PMID: 8642129]
  51. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 May;109(5 Pt 1):2062-73 [PMID: 11386558]
  52. J Acoust Soc Am. 2018 May;143(5):3114 [PMID: 29857720]
  53. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 May;119(5 Pt 1):2889-904 [PMID: 16708947]
  54. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Sep;128(3):1203-14 [PMID: 20815456]
  55. J Comp Neurol. 2007 Aug 10;503(5):593-604 [PMID: 17559088]
  56. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006 Jul;135(1):100-5 [PMID: 16815192]
  57. Audiology. 2001 Nov-Dec;40(6):308-12 [PMID: 11781043]
  58. J Speech Hear Res. 1996 Oct;39(5):947-56 [PMID: 8898249]
  59. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Apr;125(4):2172-81 [PMID: 19354393]
  60. J Am Acad Audiol. 2009 Apr;20(4):264-71 [PMID: 19927698]
  61. J Acoust Soc Am. 1986 May;79(5):1519-29 [PMID: 3711451]

Grants

  1. R01 DC008327/NIDCD NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Aged
Aging
Auditory Threshold
Cochlea
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Signal-To-Noise Ratio
Speech Acoustics
Speech Perception
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0suppressionolderadultscochlearreductionstimuligainprecedingsoundclinicallynormalmaypotentialnonlinearitytoneefferentstimulusdurationmeasuredusinglongeragesfrequencygroupyoungerDespiteaudiometricthresholdsexperiencedifficultytasksunderstandingspeechnoisyenvironmentOnereasonreducedsensitivemeasuretwo-toneauditorysystem'sresponseonepresencesecondPreviousresearchmixedwhetherdecreasesagehumansStudiesalsosuggestconsideredmeasuringpresentstudyfirstpsychoacousticallyshortresulteffectpresentingtonalnoiseprecursorsshorterYounger19-22 yr57+yrhearingtestedSuppressionestimatesdecreasedincludedsignaldecreasesuppressoraveragelowerdifferencestatisticallysignificanteffectsmeasures

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)