Search

Accurate vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) measurement requires control of extravestibular suppressive factors such as visual fixation. Although visual fixation is the dominant suppressor and has been extensively studied, the mechanisms underlying suppression from nonvisual factors of attention and auditory stimulation are less clear. It has been postulated that the nonvisual suppression of the VOR is the result of one of two mechanisms: (1) activation of auditory reception areas excites efferent pathways to the vestibular nuclei, thus inhibiting the VOR or (2) cortical modulation of the VOR results from directed attention, which implies a nonmodality-specific process.The purpose of this research was to determine if the VOR is affected by the intensity level and/or type of speech stimulus.A repeated measures design was used. The experiment was single-blinded.Participants included 17 adults (14 females, three males) between the ages of 18–34 years who reported normal oculomotor, vestibular, neurological, and musculoskeletal function.Each participant underwent slow harmonic acceleration testing in a rotational chair. VOR gain was assessed at 0.02, 0.08, and 0.32 Hz in quiet (baseline). VOR gain was also assessed at each frequency while a forward running speech stimulus (attentional) or a backward running speech stimulus (nonattentional) was presented binaurally via insert earphones at 42, 62, and 82 dBA. The order of the conditions was randomized across participants. VOR difference gain was calculated as VOR gain in the auditory condition minus baseline VOR gain. To evaluate auditory efferent function, the medial olivocochlear reflex (MOCR) was assayed using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (right ear) measured in the presence and absence of broadband noise (left ear). Contralateral acoustic reflex thresholds were also assessed using a broadband noise elicitor. A three-way repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the effect of frequency, intensity level, and speech type on VOR difference gain. Correlations were conducted to determine if difference gain was related to the strength of the MOCR and/or to the acoustic reflex threshold.The analysis of variance indicated that VOR difference gain was not significantly affected by the intensity level or the type of speech stimulus. Correlations indicated VOR difference gain was not significantly related to the strength of the MOCR or the acoustic reflex threshold.The results were in contrast to previous research examining the effect of auditory stimulation on VOR gain as auditory stimulation did not produce VOR suppression or enhancement for most of the participants. Methodological differences between the studies may explain the discrepant results. The removal of an acoustic target from space to attend to may have prevented suppression or enhancement of the VOR. Findings support the hypothesis that VOR gain may be affected by cortical modulation through directed attention rather than due to activation of efferent pathways to the vestibular nuclei.

Digital hearing aids using a 16-bit analog-to-digital converter (ADC) provide a 96-dB input dynamic range. The level at which the ADC peak clips and distorts input signals ranges between 95 and 105 dB SPL. Recent research evaluated the effect of extending the input dynamic range in a commercially available hearing aid. Although the results were promising, several limitations were noted by the authors. Laboratory testing was conducted using recordings from hearing aids set for a flat 50-dB loss; however, field testing was conducted with hearing aids fitted for their hearing loss. In addition, participants rarely encountered input levels of sufficient intensity to adequately test the feature and were unable to directly compare aids with and without extended input dynamic range (EIDR) under identical conditions.The effects of EIDR under realistic and repeatable test conditions both within and outside the laboratory setting were evaluated.A repeated measures design was used. The experiment was single-blinded.Twenty adults (14 males and six females) between the ages of 30 and 71 years (average age 62 years) who were experienced hearing aid users participated.Each participant was fit with Oticon Opn hearing instruments binaurally using the National Acoustics Laboratory-Nonlinear 1 fitting strategy. Participants completed a two-week trial period using hearing aids with EIDR and a two-week trial period without EIDR. The initial EIDR condition trial period was counterbalanced. After each trial, laboratory evaluations were obtained at 85 dBC using the Connected Speech Test, the Hearing in Noise Test, and the acceptable noise level (ANL). Satisfaction ratings were conducted at 85 dBC using speech in quiet and in noise as well as music. Field-trial evaluations were obtained using the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB). Satisfaction ratings were also conducted in the field at 85 dBC using speech and music. After the study, each participant indicated which trial period they preferred overall. Repeated measures analysis of variances were conducted to assess listener performance. Pairwise comparisons were then completed for significant main effects.In the laboratory, results did not reveal significant differences between EIDR conditions on any speech perception in noise test or any satisfaction rating measurement. In the field, results did not reveal significant differences between the EIDR conditions on the APHAB or on any of the satisfaction rating measurements. Nine participants (45%) preferred the EIDR condition. Fifteen participants (75%) indicated that speech clarity was the most important factor in determining the overall preference. Sixteen participants (80%) preferred the EIDR condition that resulted in the lower ANL.The use of EIDR in hearing aids within and outside the laboratory under realistic and repeatable test conditions did not positively or negatively impact performance or preference. Results disagreed with previous findings obtained in the laboratory that suggested EIDR improved performance; however, results agreed with previous findings obtained in the field. Future research may consider the effect of hearing aid experience, input level, and noise acceptance on potential benefit with EIDR.

Measurement of wideband reflectance requires stimuli to be delivered to the ear canal through a tube with diameter seven-times smaller than that of the average canal. This discontinuity may contribute to the measurement-location sensitivity of reflectance above 5 kHz [Lewis and Neely. (2015). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 138, 977–993]. To test this hypothesis, reflectance was measured at different locations in a set of artificial ear canals (cylindrical tubes with diameters of 8, 9, and 10 mm) terminated by an IEC711 coupler, and compared to the theoretical reflectance. The measured reflectance exhibited a high-frequency notch that (1) decreased in frequency as distance between the probe and coupler increased and (2) increased in magnitude as canal diameter increased. The theoretical reflectance lacked the high-frequency notch of the measured reflectance; however, it was possible to simulate the measured data by adding an inductance in series with the canal model [Karal. (1953). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 25, 327–334]. Transforming the impedance measured in the artificial canals to remove the estimated inductance decreased the notch depth and measurement-location sensitivity of the measured reflectance, especially for the larger diameter canals. Additionally, the measured reflectance more-closely approximated the theoretical reflectance. Findings have implications for in-situ sound-level calibrations.