Search

Listening to speech in noise is effortful for individuals with hearing loss, even if they have received a hearing prosthesis such as a hearing aid or cochlear implant (CI). At present, little is known about the neural functions that support listening effort. One form of neural activity that has been suggested to reflect listening effort is the power of 8-12 Hz (alpha) oscillations measured by electroencephalography (EEG). Alpha power in two cortical regions has been associated with effortful listening-left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), and parietal cortex-but these relationships have not been examined in the same listeners. Further, there are few studies available investigating neural correlates of effort in the individuals with cochlear implants. Here we tested 16 CI users in a novel effort-focused speech-in-noise listening paradigm, and confirm a relationship between alpha power and self-reported effort ratings in parietal regions, but not left IFG. The parietal relationship was not linear but quadratic, with alpha power comparatively lower when effort ratings were at the top and bottom of the effort scale, and higher when effort ratings were in the middle of the scale. Results are discussed in terms of cognitive systems that are engaged in difficult listening situations, and the implication for clinical translation., Competing Interests: We note that this study was funded by MED-EL. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

A correction and comment are provided for a recent article by Paul, Waheed, Bruce, and Roberts [(2017). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 142(5), EL434-EL440].

Noise exposure and aging can damage cochlear synapses required for suprathreshold listening, even when cochlear structures needed for hearing at threshold remain unaffected. To control for effects of aging, behavioral amplitude modulation (AM) detection and subcortical envelope following responses (EFRs) to AM tones in 25 age-restricted (18-19 years) participants with normal thresholds, but different self-reported noise exposure histories were studied. Participants with more noise exposure had smaller EFRs and tended to have poorer AM detection than less-exposed individuals. Simulations of the EFR using a well-established cochlear model were consistent with more synaptopathy in participants reporting greater noise exposure.

It has been proposed that tinnitus is generated by aberrant neural activity that develops among neurons in tonotopic of regions of primary auditory cortex (A1) affected by hearing loss, which is also the frequency region where tinnitus percepts localize (Eggermont and Roberts 2004; Roberts et al., 2010, 2013). These models suggest (1) that differences between tinnitus and control groups of similar age and audiometric function should depend on whether A1 is probed in tinnitus frequency region (TFR) or below it, and (2) that brain responses evoked from A1 should track changes in the tinnitus percept when residual inhibition (RI) is induced by forward masking. We tested these predictions by measuring (128-channel EEG) the sound-evoked 40-Hz auditory steady-state response (ASSR) known to localize tonotopically to neural sources in A1. For comparison the N1 transient response localizing to distributed neural sources in nonprimary cortex (A2) was also studied. When tested under baseline conditions where tinnitus subjects would have heard their tinnitus, ASSR responses were larger in a tinnitus group than in controls when evoked by 500 Hz probes while the reverse was true for tinnitus and control groups tested with 5 kHz probes, confirming frequency-dependent group differences in this measure. On subsequent trials where RI was induced by masking (narrow band noise centered at 5 kHz), ASSR amplitude increased in the tinnitus group probed at 5 kHz but not in the tinnitus group probed at 500 Hz. When collapsed into a single sample tinnitus subjects reporting comparatively greater RI depth and duration showed comparatively larger ASSR increases after masking regardless of probe frequency. Effects of masking on ASSR amplitude in the control groups were completely reversed from those in the tinnitus groups, with no change seen to 5 kHz probes but ASSR increases to 500 Hz probes even though the masking sound contained no energy at 500 Hz (an "off-frequency" masking effect). In contrast to these findings for the ASSR, N1 amplitude was larger in tinnitus than control groups at both probe frequencies under baseline conditions, decreased after masking in all conditions, and did not relate to RI. These results suggest that aberrant neural activity occurring in the TFR of A1 underlies tinnitus and its modulation during RI. They indicate further that while neural changes occur in A2 in tinnitus, these changes do not reflect the tinnitus percept. Models for tinnitus and forward masking are described that integrate these findings within a common framework., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)