↓ Skip to main content

Hidden Hearing Loss? No Effect of Common Recreational Noise Exposure on Cochlear Nerve Response Amplitude in Humans

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
10 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Hidden Hearing Loss? No Effect of Common Recreational Noise Exposure on Cochlear Nerve Response Amplitude in Humans
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00465
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study tested hypothesized relationships between noise exposure and auditory deficits. Both retrospective assessment of potential associations between noise exposure history and performance on an audiologic test battery and prospective assessment of potential changes in performance after new recreational noise exposure were completed. Methods: 32 participants (13M, 19F) with normal hearing (25-dB HL or better, 0.25-8 kHz) were asked to participate in 3 pre- and post-exposure sessions including: otoscopy, tympanometry, distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) (f2 frequencies 1-8 kHz), pure-tone audiometry (0.25-8 kHz), Words-in-Noise (WIN) test, and electrocochleography (eCochG) measurements at 70, 80, and 90-dB nHL (click and 2-4 kHz tone-bursts). The first session was used to collect baseline data, the second session was collected the day after a loud recreational event, and the third session was collected 1-week later. Of the 32 participants, 26 completed all 3 sessions. Results: The retrospective analysis did not reveal statistically significant relationships between noise exposure history and any auditory deficits. The day after new exposure, there was a statistically significant correlation between noise "dose" and WIN performance overall, and within the 4-dB signal-to-babble ratio. In contrast, there were no statistically significant correlations between noise dose and changes in threshold, DPOAE amplitude, or AP amplitude the day after new noise exposure. Additional analyses revealed a statistically significant relationship between TTS and DPOAE amplitude at 6 kHz, with temporarily decreased DPOAE amplitude observed with increasing TTS. Conclusions: There was no evidence of auditory deficits as a function of previous noise exposure history, and no permanent changes in audiometric, electrophysiologic, or functional measures after new recreational noise exposure. There were very few participants with TTS the day after exposure - a test time selected to be consistent with previous animal studies. The largest observed TTS was approximately 20-dB. The observed pattern of small TTS suggests little risk of synaptopathy from common recreational noise exposure, and that we should not expect to observe changes in evoked potentials for this reason. No such changes were observed in this study. These data do not support suggestions that common, recreational noise exposure is likely to result in "hidden hearing loss".

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 156 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Master 14 9%
Other 7 4%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 43 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 7%
Engineering 9 6%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 59 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2022.
All research outputs
#531,675
of 32,151,140 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#223
of 13,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,604
of 343,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,151,140 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.