|
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 20946 | | | Printed | 645 | | | Emailed | 13 | | | PDF Downloaded | 50 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 39 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Year : 2011
| Volume
: 13 | Issue : 55 | Page
: 402-406 |
|
| High-frequency audiometry: A means for early diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss |
|
Amir H Mehrparvar, Seyyed J Mirmohammadi, Abbas Ghoreyshi, Abolfazl Mollasadeghi, Ziba Loukzadeh
Department of Occupational Medicine, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
Click here for correspondence address
and email
| Date of Web Publication | 28-Nov-2011 |
|
|
 |
|
|
Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), an irreversible disorder, is a common problem in industrial settings. Early diagnosis of NIHL can help prevent the progression of hearing loss, especially in speech frequencies. For early diagnosis of NIHL, audiometry is performed routinely in conventional frequencies. We designed this study to compare the effect of noise on high-frequency audiometry (HFA) and conventional audiometry. In a historical cohort study, we compared hearing threshold and prevalence of hearing loss in conventional and high frequencies of audiometry among textile workers divided into two groups: With and without exposure to noise more than 85 dB. The highest hearing threshold was observed at 4000 Hz, 6000 Hz and 16000 Hz in conventional right ear audiometry, conventional left ear audiometry and HFA in each ear, respectively. The hearing threshold was significantly higher at 16000 Hz compared to 4000. Hearing loss was more common in HFA than conventional audiometry. HFA is more sensitive to detect NIHL than conventional audiometry. It can be useful for early diagnosis of hearing sensitivity to noise, and thus preventing hearing loss in lower frequencies especially speech frequencies. Keywords: Audiometry, high-frequency audiometry, noise-induced hearing loss, noise
How to cite this article:
Mehrparvar AH, Mirmohammadi SJ, Ghoreyshi A, Mollasadeghi A, Loukzadeh Z. High-frequency audiometry: A means for early diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss. Noise Health 2011;13:402-6 |
How to cite this URL:
Mehrparvar AH, Mirmohammadi SJ, Ghoreyshi A, Mollasadeghi A, Loukzadeh Z. High-frequency audiometry: A means for early diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss. Noise Health [serial online] 2011 [cited 2023 Sep 29];13:402-6. Available from: https://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2011/13/55/402/90295 |
| Introduction | |  |
Noise is the most pervasive hazardous agent in the workplace. Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), an irreversible disorder, is a common problem in industrial settings, especially where hazardous noise level (more than 85 dBA) is present. [1]
Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) has set 90 dBA as the time-weighted average (TWA) for an 8-hour work day exposure to noise. [2] This limit according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is 85 dBA. [3]
Noise has deleterious effects on health and performance including NIHL. [1] NIHL is the second most common form of acquired hearing loss, after presbycusis [4] and has long been recognized as a problem in occupations associated with prominent noise. [1]
NIHL is currently one of the most common occupational diseases and the second most frequently self-reported occupational injury. [4] Although NIHL is permanent, irreversible, and prevalent, it is preventable. [4] The OSHA hearing conservation amendment mandates audiometric surveillance of workers who are exposed to noise levels equal to or exceeding 85 dBA on an 8-hour time-weighted average. [5]
This routine audiometric testing is performed periodically among workers exposed to noise higher than 85 dBA. OSHA regulations require testing at the frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 and 6000 Hz. [4] Routine audiometry is still restricted to 125-8000 Hz frequencies. NIHL mostly affects high frequencies (i.e., 4000 and 6000 Hz). Early diagnosis of NIHL can help us prevent the progression of hearing loss and its extension to speech frequencies (i.e., 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000 Hz).
Some other methods have been proposed for early diagnosis of NIHL, i.e., otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) and high-frequency audiometry (HFA). OAEs include low-intensity signals which are spontaneously produced by external hair cells in response to an acoustic stimulus and can be recorded in external ear canal. Presence of OAEs shows that cochlea is healthy. [6] OAEs are now used for diagnosis of functional hearing loss and malingering. Some studies have shown a higher sensitivity of OAEs than PTA for diagnosis of individuals with a high sensitivity to noise. [7],[8]
HFA was introduced into clinical practice in the beginning of the 1960s. [9] Many studies have been performed in order to standardize and validate this test. [10],[11],[12] Recently it has been proposed that frequencies higher than 8000 Hz may be more sensitive than lower frequencies to noise, acoustic trauma or ototoxic substances, thus hearing loss in these frequencies after exposure to noise may predict NIHL in lower and especially speech frequencies; although there is still controversy about this issue.
There are some studies which have shown higher sensitivity to noise in the frequency range 10000 to 20000 Hz, [13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21] although some studies have not shown this sensitivity. [9],[22],[23] Some other studies have assessed the importance of HFA in evaluating the auditory effects of ototoxic substances or acoustic trauma. [24],[25]
Ahmed et al. found a significant difference between conventional and high frequencies after exposure to noise and the most sensitive frequencies were 14000 and 16000 Hz. [17]
Porto et al. showed that extended high frequencies may be affected by noise sooner than conventional audiometry and 16000 Hz was the most sensitive frequency. [18]
Another study in Turkey showed the most affected frequencies being 4000, 6000, 14000, and 16000 Hz suggested that HFA should be used together with standard audiometry in the detection and follow-up of individuals who are at potential risks for hearing losses. [26] Kuronen found a significant temporary threshold shift in conventional and HFA after exposure to noise. [27]
Thus, considering the high incidence and irreversibility of NIHL, early diagnosis of it, before involvement of speech frequencies, is really invaluable. So in this study we compared the hearing threshold and frequency of hearing loss in conventional and HFA among workers exposed to noise.
| Methods | | |
In a historical cohort study in 2009, we compared the effect of noise on HFA and conventional audiometry.
Subjects
Two groups of subjects entered the study. The first group (case) consisted of 120 textile workers (108 males and 12 females) from two factories. These subjects were working in the spinning, weaving, and finishing sections with exposure to continuous noise more than 85 dBA (according to the results of noise monitoring). They would not have regularly used hearing protection devices. The second group (control) consisted of 120 workers from the same factories (106 males and 14 females) who were working in warehouse, guarding, and office sections without exposure to hazardous noise (according to the results of noise monitoring). The subjects were selected randomly.
Those older than 50 years or with the history of acoustic trauma, conductive hearing loss, exposure to ototoxic substances or ototoxic drug consumption were excluded from the study. After 16 hours removal from noise exposure, conventional audiometry was performed for the participants in both groups (using clinical audiometer: AC40, Interacoustic, Denmark, headphone: TDH39) and then HFA was perfomed for each participant, as well (same audiometer, headphone: Koss, R/80).
Audiometry was performed by an expert audiologist (blinded to the study) in an acoustic chamber, meeting standards ANSI 2004. [28] We considered hearing loss as hearing threshold more than 20 dBA in each frequency. [29] We defined hearing threshold in all frequencies and compared them.
The results of both tests were compared using SPSS (Ver. 17). Paired 't' test was used for comparison. A P-value of less than 0.05 was taken as the level of significance. An informed consent was filled for each participant.
| Results | | |
[Table 1] shows the descriptive data of the subjects in both groups. There was not any significant difference between two groups in age and duration of employment.
Among the subjects of case group the highest hearing threshold in conventional audiometry was observed at 4000 Hz in left ear (22.87 dB), and at 6000 Hz in right ear (23.56 dB). In HFA the highest hearing threshold was observed at 16000 Hz (39.69 dB and 39.19 dB, in right and left ears, respectively). [Table 2] shows mean hearing thresholds at different frequencies. [Figure 1] and [Figure 2] show hearing threshold at all frequencies studied among the participants of both groups.
There was not any statistically significant difference between right and left ears in both groups. Hearing loss was more common in males than females, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.28, and P=0.18 for conventional audiometry and HFA, respectively).
Since in conventional audiometry, 3000, 4000 and 6000 Hz frequencies are three most sensitive frequencies to noise, we compared hearing threshold at 16000 Hz with these three frequencies. In case group, hearing threshold was higher at 16000 Hz in both ears, and the difference was statistically significant for all frequencies (P<0.001 for each frequency in each ear); but this comparison did not show any significant difference in control group (P=0.18, 0.41, 0.72 for right ear 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz; and P=0.39, 0.91, 0.28 for left ear 3000, 4000, 6000 Hz, respectively).
In all, 54.2% of cases had hearing loss at least in one ear and at one frequency in conventional audiometry. This measure was 87.6% at high frequencies. In control group subjects had hearing loss in conventional and HFA in 5.1% and 12.3%, respectively.
Prevalence of hearing loss in each frequency (higher than 2000 Hz) is shown in [Table 3]. | Table 3: Frequency of hearing loss in different frequencies in both groups
Click here to view |
| Discussion | | |
Occupational hearing loss may be induced by noise, toxic substances or acoustic trauma. Occupational hearing loss due to noise is one of the most common occupational diseases. Audiometric evaluation of the subjects exposed to noise is a simple and inexpensive method for diagnosis of NIHL. Recently, HFA has been introduced as a better predictor of occupational hearing loss, especially NIHL in workers.
In this study we compared the effect of noise on conventional and HFA. Hearing threshold in HFA was significantly higher than conventional frequencies (250, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz) which was consistent with some other studies. [18],[19],[20],[21],[26] In most studies 16000, 18000, and 20000 Hz were the most sensitive frequencies to noise.
Balatsouras et al. assessed HFA in persons exposed to impulse noise and their study did not find any statistically significant threshold difference between conventional and HFA. [23]
We found a higher incidence of hearing loss at 4000, 6000, and 16000 Hz, with 16000 Hz being the most sensitive frequency, which was consistent with some other studies. [18],[21],[26] In Türkkahraman's study hearing loss at 14 KHz was also common, [26] which was inconsistent with our study; in our study hearing loss at 14 KHz was clearly lower than 4, 6, and 16 KHz. Wang et al. found hearing loss in all high frequencies (10-16 KHz), but in our study hearing threshold at 10, 12, and 14 KHz frequencies was almost normal and lower than 4 and 6 KHz. [16]
Kuronen could not find a significant difference between conventional and HFA among pilots; [27] although he only assessed temporary threshold shift.
There was not any statistically significant difference between right and left ears in both groups in our study which was consistent with Balatsouras study. We could not find any statistically significant gender difference in conventional and HFA which was consistent with another study, [11] although our female subjects were much lower than male subjects.
Tanga et al. assessed HFA among workers exposed to ototoxic substances and found a greater sensitivity to these substances in high frequencies. [25]
Although many studies have shown the effectiveness of HFA in predicting NIHL, there is still controversy in this issue, but most recent studies were consistent with our study in this issue that performing HFA can help in the early diagnosis of NIHL. So according to the results of this study, for early diagnosis of NIHL we can perform HFA during periodic or surveillance examinations of the workers who are exposed to hazardous noise. This may predict later hearing loss due to noise in conventional and speech frequencies. Studies with a follow-up period after pre-employment examinations can more precisely show the effectiveness of HFA for early diagnosis of NIHL.
Our study had some limitations. We could not assess 18000 and 20000 Hz frequencies because of our equipment limitations. The number of female subjects was much lower than male subjects.
| Conclusions | | |
HFA is more sensitive to detect NIHL than conventional audiometry. It can be useful for early diagnosis of hearing sensitivity to noise, and thus preventing hearing loss in lower frequencies especially speech frequencies.
| Acknowledgment | | |
This project was performed with financial support from Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences. Authors are grateful to the managers of Shadris and Selk Baf textile factories for their participation in this research.
| References | | |
| 1. | Dunn DE, Rabinowitz PM. Noise, In: Rosenstock L, editor. Textbook of clinical occupational and environmental medicine. 2 nd ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Saunders; 2005. p. 893. 
|
| 2. | OSHA. Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Final regulatory analysis of the hearing conservation amendment. Report No. 723-860/752 1B3. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1981.
|
| 3. | NIOSH. A proposed national strategy for the prevention of noise-induced hearing loss, Chapter 8 in: Proposed National strategies for the Prevention of Leading Work-Related Diseases and Injuries, Part 2. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 1988.
|
| 4. | Robinowitz PM, Rees TS. Occupational hearing loss, In: Rosenstock L, editor. Textbook of clinical occupational and environmental medicine. 2 nd ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Saunders, 2005. p. 426-30.
|
| 5. | Hallmo P, Borchgrevink HM, Mair IW. Extended high-frequency thresholds in noise-induced hearing loss. Scand Audiol, 1995;24:47-52.
|
| 6. | Prieve B, Fitzgerald T. Otoacousic emissions, In: Kats J, editor. Handbook of clinical audiology. 6 th ed, Baltimor: Wiliams and Wilkins; 2009. p. 497-512.
|
| 7. | Desai A, Reed D, Cheyne A, Richards S, Prasher D. Absence of otoacoustic emissions in subjects with normal audiometric thresholds implies exposure to noise. Noise Health 1999;1:58-65.
[PUBMED]  |
| 8. | Sliwinska-Kowalska M, Kotylo P, Hendler B. Comparing changes in transient-evoked otoacoustic emission and pure-tone audiometry following short exposure to industrial noise. Noise Health 1999;1:50-7.
[PUBMED] |
| 9. | Okstad S, Mair IW, Laukli E. High-frequency audiometry: Air- and electric bone-conduction. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1988;449:159-60.
|
| 10. | Stelmachowicz PG, Beauchaine KA, Kalberer A, Langer T, Jesteadt W. The reliability of auditory thresholds in the 8 to 20 kHz range using a prototype audiometer. J Acoust Soc Am 1988;83:1528-35.
|
| 11. | Barbosa de Sá LC, Tavares de Lima MA, Tomita S, Coelho Frota SM, Santos G, Garcia TR. Analisys of high frequency auditory thresholds in individuals aged between 18 and 29 years with no ontological complaints. Rev Bras Otorhinolaringol 2008;73:215-25.
|
| 12. | Sakamoto M, Sugasawa M, Kaga K, Kamio T. Average thresholds in the 8 to 20 kHz range in young adults. Scand Audiol 1998;27:169-72.
|
| 13. | Fausti SA, Erickson DA, Frey RH, Rappaport BZ, Schlechter MA. The effects of noise upon human hearing sensitivity from 8000 to 20000 Hz. J Acoust Soc 1981;69:1343-9.
|
| 14. | Dieroff HG. Behaviour of high-frequency hearing in noise. Audiology 1982;21:83-92.
|
| 15. | Doménech J, Carulla M, Traserra J. Sensorineural high-frequency hearing loss after drill-generated trauma in tympanoplasty. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1989;246:280-2.
|
| 16. | Wang Y, Yang B, Li Y, Hou L, Hu Y, Han Y. Application of extended high frequency audiometry in the early diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi 2000;35:26-8.
|
| 17. | Ahmed HO, Jennis AH, Badran O, Ismail M, Ballal SJ, Ashoor A, et al. High-frequency (10-18KHz) hearing thresholds: Reliability, and effects of age and occupational noise exposure. Occup Med 2001;51:245-58.
|
| 18. | Porto MA, Gahyva DL, Lauris JR, Lopes AC. Audiometric evaluation in extended high frequencies of individuals exposed to occupational noise. Pro Fono 2004;16:237-50.
|
| 19. | Singh R, Saxena RK, Varshney S. Early detection of noise-induced hearing loss by using ultra-high frequency audiometry. IJ Otorhinolaryngol 2009;10.
|
| 20. | Marques de Oliviera DCC, Tavares de Lima MA. Low and high frequency tonal threshold audiometry: Comparing hearing thresholds between smokers and non-smokers. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2009;75:738-44.
|
| 21. | Lopes AC, Otubo KA, Basso TC, Marinelli EJ, Lauris JR. Occupational Hearing Loss: Tonal Audiometry X High Frequencies Audiometry. Int Arch Otolaryngol 2009;3:293-302.
|
| 22. | Osterhammel D. High-frequency audiometry and noise-induced hearing loss. Scand Audiol 1979;8:85-90.
|
| 23. | Balatsouras DG, Homsioglou E, Danielidis V. Extended high-frequency audiometry in patients with acoustic trauma. Clin Otolaryngol 2005;30:249-54.
|
| 24. | Arora R, Thakur JS, Azad RK, Mohindroo NK, Sharma DR, Seam RK. Cisplatin-based chemotherapy: Add high-frequency audiometry in the regimen. Indian J Cancer 2009;46:311-7.
[PUBMED] |
| 25. | Tange RA, Dreschler WA, van der Hulst RJ. The importance of high-tone audiometry in monitoring for ototoxicity. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1985;242:77-81.
|
| 26. | Türkkahraman S, Gök U, Karlidað T, Keleþ E, Oztürk A. Findings of standard and high-frequency audiometry in workers exposed to occupational noise for long durations. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2003;10:137-42.
|
| 27. | Kuronen P, Sorri MJ, Pakoonen R, Muhli A. Temporary threshold shift in military pilots measured using conventional and extended high-frequency audiometry after one flight. Int J Audiol 2003;42:29-33.
|
| 28. | American National Standards Institute. Specifications for audiometers. ANSI S3.6-2004. New York: American National Standard Institute, Inc; 2004.
|
| 29. | Jhonson J, Robinson ST. Occupational hearing loss. In: Ladou J editor. Current occupational and environmental medicine. 3 rd ed. New York City, U.S: McGraw-Hill; 2007. p. 104-10.
|
Correspondence Address:
Amir H Mehrparvar
Department of Occupational Medicine, Shahid Rahnamoun Hospital, Yazd
Iran
 Source of Support: Financial support from Shahid Sadoughi University
of Medical Sciences, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.90295
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3] |
|
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
High frequency hearing 25 years after transmyringeal ventilation tube treatment |
|
| Nina Pauli, Ola Sunnergren, Rut Florentzson | | International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 2023; 167: 111509 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Speech understanding and extended high-frequency hearing sensitivity in blast-exposed veterans |
|
| Tess K. Koerner, Frederick J. Gallun | | The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2023; 154(1): 379 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Five-Year Longitudinal Cohort Study Determines the Critical Intervals for Periodic Audiometric Testing Based on 5070 Tests of Metallurgical Workers Exposed and Nonexposed to Noise |
|
| Vagner Antonio Rodrigues Silva, Alexandre Caixeta Guimarăes, Joel Lavinsky, Henrique Furlan Pauna, Alexandre Scalli Mathias Duarte, Arthur Menino Castilho, Carlos Takahiro Chone, Agrício Nubiato Crespo | | Ear & Hearing. 2022; 43(1): 81 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Auditory changes following firearm noise exposure, a review |
|
| Kristine Sonstrom Malowski, Lindsay H. Gollihugh, Heather Malyuk, Colleen G. Le Prell | | The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2022; 151(3): 1769 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
The effect of age and hearing sensitivity at frequencies above 8 kHz on auditory stream segregation and speech perception |
|
| Saransh Jain, Vijaya Kumar Narne, N. P. Nataraja, Sanjana Madhukesh, Kruthika Kumar, Brian C. J. Moore | | The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2022; 152(1): 716 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
Suprathreshold Auditory Measures for Detecting Early-Stage Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Young Adults |
|
| Ishan S. Bhatt, Nilesh Washnik, Ali Torkamani | | Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 7 |
Noise Pollution and Associated Hearing Loss in a Metropolitan City—a Preliminary Report |
|
| Roopak Visakan Raja, Gurumani Sriraman, Mohan Kameswaran | | Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 8 |
Audiological findings in individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 |
|
| Burak Öztürk, Hatice Kavruk, Aysenur Aykul | | American Journal of Otolaryngology. 2022; : 103428 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 9 |
Detection and Grading of Early-Stage Cochlear Damage in Land Hunters by Comparison of Extended High-Frequency Audiograms with Conventional High-Frequency Audiograms |
|
| Remzi Tinazli, Mehtap Tinazli | | Journal of Audiology and Otology. 2022; 26(2): 83 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 10 |
Assessment of Hidden Hearing Loss in Individuals Exposed to Occupational Noise Using Cochlear, Neural, Temporal Functions and Quality of Life Measures |
|
| Shubhaganga Dhrruvakumar, Tejaswini Shambhu, Sreeraj Konadath | | Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 11 |
Analysis of Early Biomarkers Associated With Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Among Shipyard Workers |
|
| Zhuang Jiang, Jiping Wang, Yanmei Feng, Daoyuan Sun, Xunmiao Zhang, Haibo Shi, Jian Wang, Richard Salvi, Hui Wang, Shankai Yin | | JAMA Network Open. 2021; 4(9): e2124100 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 12 |
Development and validation of a digits-in-noise hearing test in Persian |
|
| Lina Motlagh Zadeh, Noah H. Silbert, Katherine Sternasty, David R. Moore | | International Journal of Audiology. 2021; 60(3): 202 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 13 |
Expression of serum proteins in noise induced hearing loss workers of mining based industry |
|
| Rajani G. Tumane, Lucky Thakkar, Shubhangi K. Pingle, Ruchika K. Jain, Aruna A. Jawade, Dhananjay V. Raje | | Journal of Proteomics. 2021; 240: 104185 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 14 |
Identifying genetic risk variants associated with noise-induced hearing loss based on a novel strategy for evaluating individual susceptibility |
|
| Zhuang Jiang, Botao Fa, Xunmiao Zhang, Jiping Wang, Yanmei Feng, Haibo Shi, Yue Zhang, Daoyuan Sun, Hui Wang, Shankai Yin | | Hearing Research. 2021; 407: 108281 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 15 |
Improved Sensitivity of Digits-in-Noise Test to High-Frequency Hearing Loss |
|
| Lina Motlagh Zadeh, Noah H. Silbert, De Wet Swanepoel, David R. Moore | | Ear & Hearing. 2021; 42(3): 565 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 16 |
Extended high-frequency audiometry in healthy adults with different age groups |
|
| Mingming Wang, Yu Ai, Yuechen Han, Zhaomin Fan, Peng Shi, Haibo Wang | | Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery. 2021; 50(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 17 |
Acute Recreational Noise-Induced Cochlear Synaptic Dysfunction in Humans With Normal Hearing: A Prospective Cohort Study |
|
| Qixuan Wang, Lu Yang, Minfei Qian, Yingying Hong, Xueling Wang, Zhiwu Huang, Hao Wu | | Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2021; 15 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 18 |
High-Frequency Audiometry for Early Detection of Hearing Loss: A Narrative Review |
|
| Michaela Škerková, Martina Kovalová, Eva Mrázková | | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(9): 4702 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 19 |
Auditory and cognitive functioning in hidden hearing loss due to noise exposure, aging, and tinnitus: A systematic review |
|
| Sahana Vasudevamurthy, AjithU Kumar | | Journal of All India Institute of Speech and Hearing. 2021; 40(1): 39 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 20 |
Occupational Noise: Auditory and Non-Auditory Consequences |
|
| Adam Sheppard, Massimo Ralli, Antonio Gilardi, Richard Salvi | | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(23): 8963 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 21 |
Drug development for noise-induced hearing loss |
|
| Isabel Varela-Nieto, Silvia Murillo-Cuesta, Miryam Calvino, Rafael Cediel, Luis Lassaletta | | Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery. 2020; 15(12): 1457 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 22 |
Investigating the effects of noise exposure on self-report, behavioral and electrophysiological indices of hearing damage in musicians with normal audiometric thresholds |
|
| Samuel Couth, Garreth Prendergast, Hannah Guest, Kevin J. Munro, David R. Moore, Christopher J. Plack, Jane Ginsborg, Piers Dawes | | Hearing Research. 2020; 395: 108021 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 23 |
Bottom-up and top-down neural signatures of disordered multi-talker speech perception in adults with normal hearing |
|
| Aravindakshan Parthasarathy, Kenneth E Hancock, Kara Bennett, Victor DeGruttola, Daniel B Polley | | eLife. 2020; 9 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 24 |
Individual differences in the attentional modulation of the human auditory brainstem response to speech inform on speech-in-noise deficits |
|
| Marina Saiz-Alía, Antonio Elia Forte, Tobias Reichenbach | | Scientific Reports. 2019; 9(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 25 |
Working Memory and Extended High-Frequency Hearing in Adults: Diagnostic Predictors of Speech-in-Noise Perception |
|
| Ingrid Yeend, Elizabeth Francis Beach, Mridula Sharma | | Ear & Hearing. 2019; 40(3): 458 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 26 |
Is There a Safe Level for Recording Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential? Evidence From Cochlear and Hearing Function Tests |
|
| Niraj Kumar Singh, Nainitha Kizhake Keloth, Sachchidanand Sinha | | Ear & Hearing. 2019; 40(3): 493 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 27 |
Noise exposure limit for children in recreational settings: Review of available evidence |
|
| Benjamin Roberts, Richard L. Neitzel | | The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2019; 146(5): 3922 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 28 |
A New Score to Predict the Risk of Hearing Impairment After Microvascular Decompression for Hemifacial Spasm |
|
| Ahmed El Damaty, Christian Rosenstengel, Marc Matthes, Joerg Baldauf, Oliver Dziemba, Werner Hosemann, Henry W S Schroeder | | Neurosurgery. 2017; 81(5): 834 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 29 |
Fixed-Level Frequency Threshold Testing for Ototoxicity Monitoring |
|
| Catherine C. Rieke, Odile H. Clavier, Lindsay V. Allen, Allison P. Anderson, Chris A. Brooks, Abigail M. Fellows, Douglas S. Brungart, Jay C. Buckey | | Ear & Hearing. 2017; 38(6): e369 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 30 |
The effects of noise exposure and musical training on suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise |
|
| Ingrid Yeend, Elizabeth Francis Beach, Mridula Sharma, Harvey Dillon | | Hearing Research. 2017; 353: 224 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 31 |
NRF2 Is a Key Target for Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss by Reducing Oxidative Damage of Cochlea |
|
| Yohei Honkura, Hirotaka Matsuo, Shohei Murakami, Masayuki Sakiyama, Kunio Mizutari, Akihiro Shiotani, Masayuki Yamamoto, Ichiro Morita, Nariyoshi Shinomiya, Tetsuaki Kawase, Yukio Katori, Hozumi Motohashi | | Scientific Reports. 2016; 6(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 32 |
High-frequency hearing thresholds: effects of age, occupational ultrasound and noise exposure |
|
| Isabella Maccŕ,Maria Luisa Scapellato,Mariella Carrieri,Stefano Maso,Andrea Trevisan,Giovanni Battista Bartolucci | | International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2014; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 33 |
Conventional Audiometry, Extended High-Frequency Audiometry, and DPOAE for Early Diagnosis of NIHL |
|
| Amir Houshang Mehrparvar,Seyyed Jalil Mirmohammadi,Mohammad Hossein Davari,Mehrdad Mostaghaci,Abolfazl Mollasadeghi,Maryam Bahaloo,Seyyed Hesam Hashemi | | Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal. 2014; 16(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 34 |
Incidence of high-frequency hearing loss after microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm |
|
| Tingting Ying,Parthasarathy Thirumala,Aalap Shah,Tara Nikonow,Kelley Wichman,Maura Holmes,Barry Hirsch,Yuefang Chang,Paul Gardner,Miguel Habeych,Donald J. Crammond,Lois Burkhart,Michael Horowitz,Jeffrey Balzer | | Journal of Neurosurgery. 2013; 118(4): 719 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 35 |
Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy in the Management of Tinnitus due to Noise-Induced Hearing Loss: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial |
|
| Abolfazl Mollasadeghi,Seyyed Jalil Mirmohammadi,Amir Houshang Mehrparvar,Mohammad Hossein Davari,Pedram Shokouh,Mehrdad Mostaghaci,Mohammad Hossein Baradaranfar,Maryam Bahaloo | | The Scientific World Journal. 2013; 2013: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 36 |
Effect of Workplace Noise on Hearing Ability in Tile and Ceramic Industry Workers in Iran: A 2-Year Follow-Up Study |
|
| Mehrdad Mostaghaci,Seyyed Jalil Mirmohammadi,Amir Houshang Mehrparvar,Maryam Bahaloo,Abolfazl Mollasadeghi,Mohammad Hossein Davari | | The Scientific World Journal. 2013; 2013: 1 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 37 |
Incidence of high-frequency hearing loss after microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm: Clinical article |
|
| Ying, T. and Thirumala, P. and Shah, A. and Nikonow, T. and Wichman, K. and Holmes, M. and Hirsch, B. and Chang, Y. and Gardner, P. and Habeych, M. and Crammond, D.J. and Burkhart, L. and Horowitz, M. and Balzer, J. | | Journal of Neurosurgery. 2013; 118(4): 719-724 | | [Pubmed] | | | 38 |
Exposure to classroom sound pressure level among dance teachers in Porto Alegre (RS) |
|
| Nehring, C. and Bauer, M.A. and Teixeira, A.R. | | International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology. 2013; 17(1): 20-25 | | [Pubmed] | | | 39 |
Prevalnace of noise induced hearing loss among traffic police personnel of Kathmandu metropolitan city |
|
| Shrestha, I. and Shrestha, B.L. and Pokharel, M. and Amatya, R.C.M. and Karki, D.R. | | Kathmandu University Medical Journal. 2011; 9(36): 274-278 | | [Pubmed] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search Pubmed for
