18 November 2022>: Review Articles
A Systematic Review of the Literature Between 2009 and 2019 to Identify and Evaluate Publications on the Effects of Age-Related Hearing Loss on Speech Processing
Andrea Cristina de Oliveira Einchner 1ABCDEF , Caroline Donadon 2CDEF* , Piotr Henryk Skarżyński 345AEG , Milaine Dominici Sanfins 67ABCDEFDOI: 10.12659/MSM.938089
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e938089
Table 3 Characteristics of selected studies.
Article | Sample | Audiological assessment | Stimuli presentation | Complementary assessment | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jain et al 2019 []11 | SG: 40 ONH, 60–80 years, mean age 63±2.95 yearsCG: 52 YNH, 20–40 years, mean age 30±5.15 yearsNative speakers of KannadaFormal education ≥10 years | ONH: pure-tone thresholds | BioLogic Navigator ProQuiet and noise condition (ipsilateral pink noise at +10 dB SNR) | SIN test with sentences in KannadaAuditory digit sequencingAuditory digit spanSpatial selective attention task | The older adults performed significantly more poorly than the younger adults on the quick speech perception in noise test and various cognitive measuresThere was a significant deterioration in brainstem encoding of speech with agingFundamental frequency of the speech auditory brainstem response correlated with speech perception in noise |
Heidari et al 2018 []3 | SC: 32 NH elderly, over 60 years, mean age: 68.9±6.3 years, 17 MCG: 32 young NH subjects, 18–25 years, mean age: 21.43±1.74 years, 16 M.Persian native speakersRight-handed | SG: pure tone average ≤25 dB HL in 0.5–4 kHz; thresholds of each of 4 frequencies ≤40 dB HL; maximum mean difference as 5 dB HLCG: pure tone average | BioLogic Navigator ProQuiet condition | MMSESIN testSSQ questionnaire | The score of the SIN test was lower among the elderly people as compared with young people in signal-to-noise ratios of 0 and -10 based on Iranian version of the SSQ questionnaire (p |
Ansari et al 2017 []12 | SG: 25 geriatric people with NH, 60–75 years, mean age 66.1±6.2 yearsCG: 25 young adults with NH, 18–25 years, mean age: 21.3±3.2 yearsRight-handed | Pure tone thresholds ≤25 dB HL in 0.25–8 kHzNormal middle-ear functionNormal click-evoked ABR | IHS SmartEPQuiet and noise conditions (ipsilateral Gaussian noise at +5 dB SNR) | The older group had significantly smaller amplitudes and longer latencies for the onset and offset responses in noisy conditionsStimulus-to-response times were longer and the spectral amplitude of the sustained portion of the stimulus was reducedThe overall stimulus level caused significant shifts in latency across the entire speech-evoked auditory brainstem response in the older group | |
Anderson et al 2013 []13 | SG: 15 HI adults, ages 60–71 years, mean age: 64.07±3.39 yearsCG: 15 NH adults, ages 61–68 years, mean 64.07±2.09 years | SG: thresholds from 0.125–2 kHz | BioLogic Navigator ProCG: quiet and noise conditionSG: unamplified stimulus presented in quiet; amplified stimulus presented in quiet; unamplified stimulus presented in noise; amplified stimulus presented in noiseNoise condition: ipsilateral, pink noise at +10 dB SNR | In the HI group, there was a disruption in the balance of envelope-to-fine structure representation compared with the normal hearing groupThis imbalance may underlie the difficulty experienced by individuals with sensorineural hearing loss when trying to understand speech in background noise | |
Clinard and Tremblay 2013 []2 | 34 adults aged 22–77 yrs., 30 M.Approximately 5 subjects per age decadeMonolingual native-English speakersRight-handed | NH sensitivity: thresholds ≤25 dB HL at 0.25–8 kHzNormal middle-ear function | FFR elicited by 500 ms tone-burst stimuli (Neuroscan SynAmps2)FFR elicited by consonant-vowel syllable (BioLogic Navigator Pro)Quiet condition | The neural representation of simple (tone) and complex (/da/) stimuli declines with advancing ageTone-FFR phase coherence decreased as chronological age increasedTransient onset and offset response amplitudes were smaller, and offset responses were delayed with ageSustained responses at the onset of vowel periodicity were prolonged in latency and smaller in amplitude as age increasedFFT amplitude of consonant-vowel FFR fundamental frequency did not significantly decline with increasing age | |
Vander et al 2011 []14 | SG: 18 ONH adults, 61–78 years, 17 FCG: 19 YNH, 20–26 years, 13 F | NH sensitivity: thresholds ≤25 dB HL at 0.25–8 kHzNormal click-evoked ABR | BioLogic Navigator ProQuiet environment | Older adults also had significantly smaller onset and offset responses for the S-ABR, with significantly delayed offset latencies in response to this synthetic consonant-vowel syllableThe remaining significant S-ABR effects were decreased amplitude at the onset and significantly delayed offset responses in the older group | |
SG – study group; ONH – older normal-hearing adults; CG – control group; YNH – young with normal hearing; dB SNR – decibel signal-to-noise ratio; dB HL – decibel hearing level; kHz – kilohertz; ABR – Auditory brainstem response; SIN – speech-in-noise test; NH – normal hearing; M – male; PTA – pure tone audiometry; HI – hearing impaired; F – female; IHS – Intelligent Hearing Systems; MMSE – Mini-Mental State Examination; SSQ – Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale Questionnaire. |