ABSTRACT
The pursuit of noninvasive early markers for sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) has yielded diverse measures of interest. However, comprehensive studies evaluating the test-retest reliability of multiple measures and stimuli within a single study are scarce, and a standardized clinical protocol for robust SNHL-markers remains elusive. To address these gaps, this study covers the intra-subject variability of potential EEG-biomarkers for cochlear synaptopathy (CS) and other SNHL-markers to determine their clinical suitability. Fifteen normal-hearing young adults underwent repeated measures of (extended high-frequency) pure-tone audiometry, speech-in-noise intelligibility, distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), and auditory evoked potentials; comprising envelope following responses (EFR) and auditory brainstem responses (ABR). Results show high reliability in pure-tone audiometry, whereas the matrix sentence-test showed a significant learning effect. DP-grams and input-output functions’ reliability varied across three evaluation methods with distinct SNR-based criteria for DPOAE-datapoints. EFRs demonstrated superior test-retest reliability compared to ABR-amplitudes. Our findings underscore careful interpretation of presumed noninvasive SNHL measures. While we confirm the robustness of tonal-audiometry, we found a confounding learning effect in longitudinal speech audiometry. DPOAE variability underscores the need for consistent ear probe replacement and meticulous measurement techniques and renders I/O-functions unsuitable for clinical application. As potential EEG-biomarkers of CS, EFRs are favored over ABR-amplitudes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by UGent BOF-IOP project: Portable Hearing Diagnostics: Monitoring of Auditory-nerve Integrity after Noise Exposure (EarDiMon), European research counsil proof of concept grant CochSyn (899858) and EU Innovation counsil Grant EarDiTech (101058278).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of Ghent University Hospital gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes