2021Yonsei Medical JournalOpen access

Limitation of Conventional Audiometry in Identifying Hidden Hearing Loss in Acute Noise Exposure

Gi‐Sung Nam, Ju Young Kim, Seong Ah Hong, Seon Geum Kim, Eun Jin Son

Open full text 14 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: The concept of hidden hearing loss can explain the discrepancy between a listener's perception of hearing ability and hearing evaluation using pure tone audiograms. This study investigated the utility of the suprathreshold auditory brainstem response (ABR) for the evaluation of hidden hearing loss in noise-exposed ear with normal audiograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 15 patients (24 ears) with normal auditory thresholds and normal distortion product otoacoustic emissions were included in a retrospective analysis of medical records of 80 patients presenting with histories of acute noise exposure. The control group included 12 subjects (24 ears) with normal audiograms and no history of noise exposure. Pure tone audiometry and suprathreshold ABR testing at 90 dB peSPL were performed. The amplitudes and latencies of ABR waves I and V were compared between the noise-exposed and control groups. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in the wave I or V amplitude, or the wave I/V ratio, between the two groups. The latencies of ABR wave I, V, and I-V interpeak interval were compared, and no significant intergroup difference was observed. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that either hidden hearing loss may not be significant in this cohort of patients with acute noise exposure history, or the possible damage by noise exposure is not reflected in the ABRs. Further studies are needed to inquire about the role of ABR in identification of hidden hearing loss.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: The concept of hidden hearing loss can explain the discrepancy between a listener's perception of hearing ability and hearing evaluation using pure tone audiograms. This study investigated the utility of the suprathreshold auditory brainstem response (ABR) for the evaluation of hidden hearing loss in noise-exposed ear with normal audiograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 15 patients (24 ears) with normal auditory thresholds and normal distortion product otoacoustic emissions were included in a retrospective analysis of medical records of 80 patients presenting with histories of acute noise exposure. The control group included 12 subjects (24 ears) with normal audiograms and no history of noise exposure. Pure tone audiometry and suprathreshold ABR testing at 90 dB peSPL were performed. The amplitudes and latencies of ABR waves I and V were compared between the noise-exposed and control groups. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in the wave I or V amplitude, or the wave I/V ratio, between the two groups. The latencies of ABR wave I, V, and I-V interpeak interval were compared, and no significant intergroup difference was observed. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that either hidden hearing loss may not be significant in this cohort of patients with acute noise exposure history, or the possible damage by noise exposure is not reflected in the ABRs. Further studies are needed to inquire about the role of ABR in identification of hidden hearing loss.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 14 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: The concept of hidden hearing loss can explain the discrepancy between a listener's perception of hearing ability and hearing evaluation using pure tone audiograms. This study investigated the utility of the suprathreshold auditory brainstem response (ABR) for the evaluation of hidden hearing loss in noise-exposed ear with normal audiograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 15 patients (24 ears) with normal auditory thresholds and normal distortion product otoacoustic emissions were included in a retrospective analysis of medical records of 80 patients presenting with histories of acute noise exposure. The control group included 12 subjects (24 ears) with normal audiograms and no history of noise exposure. Pure tone audiometry and suprathreshold ABR testing at 90 dB peSPL were performed. The amplitudes and latencies of ABR waves I and V were compared between the noise-exposed and control groups. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in the wave I or V amplitude, or the wave I/V ratio, between the two groups. The latencies of ABR wave I, V, and I-V interpeak interval were compared, and no significant intergroup difference was observed. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that either hidden hearing loss may not be significant in this cohort of patients with acute noise exposure history, or the possible damage by noise exposure is not reflected in the ABRs. Further studies are needed to inquire about the role of ABR in identification of hidden hearing loss.

Key concepts: Audiogram, Audiology, Hearing loss, Medicine, Audiometry, Auditory brainstem response, Pure tone audiometry, Noise (video)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Limitation of Conventional Audiometry in Identifying Hidden Hearing Loss in Acute Noise Exposure — Research Paper | ScholarLens