The science of sound: Understanding how the brain helps us hear in noise



Ian Mertes has been interested in how the brain influences the inner ear since he was a graduate student. (Photo provided)

For millions of people worldwide, hearing loss is not simply a matter of volume but clarity—especially in noisy environments. Struggling to distinguish a single voice in a crowded restaurant, a busy office or even a family gathering is a common report among those with hearing difficulties. Researchers at the forefront of auditory science are investigating an essential but often overlooked aspect of hearing: the brain’s role in processing sound.

A study led by Department of Speech and Hearing Science Associate Professor Ian Mertes, titled “Olivocochlear Efferent Function: Associations with Hearing in Noise and Listening Effort,” aims to deepen our understanding of how the brain influences our ability to distinguish speech amid background noise. The project, supported by a three-year, $570,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health, will examine the neurological mechanisms that contribute to hearing in noise and the effort required to listen under challenging conditions.

Mertes has been interested in how the brain influences the inner ear since he was a graduate student.

Hearing is often thought of as a passive process: sound waves enter the ear, are converted into neural signals, and are sent to the brain for interpretation. However, the reality is far more complex. The auditory system has a top-down control mechanism that influences how the ear processes incoming sounds. This system, known as the medial olivocochlear efferent system, acts as a neural feedback loop that modulates auditory input.

But Mertes said there are still unanswered questions about how this system contributes to listening in everyday life. Efferent pathways originate in the brainstem and extend to the cochlea, the inner ear’s sensory organ responsible for converting sound waves into electrical signals. These pathways play a crucial role in adjusting how we hear in noisy environments. By selectively dampening background noise and enhancing speech signals, the medial olivocochlear system may improve our ability to focus on important sounds while ignoring irrelevant ones.

“My study also examines if the medial olivocochlear reflex is involved in listening effort,” he said. “Even if the medial olivocochlear reflex does not improve someone’s performance on a speech-in-noise task, it may reduce the mental resources needed to listen in background noise.”

Investigating Speech-in-Noise Recognition

The study aims to explore how variations in this top-down control contribute to an individual’s ability to understand speech in noisy settings. Researchers will work with adults who report varying levels of difficulty in hearing amid background noise. By measuring their auditory responses under controlled conditions, the team hopes to uncover patterns that link efferent function to speech recognition abilities. Mertes said that in addition to people with hearing loss, it’s estimated that up to 44 million U.S. adults have clinically normal hearing and yet report that they have difficulty hearing in noisy situations. 

“We are still trying to understand the underlying reasons for these difficulties,” he said.

Beyond understanding speech in noise, the study will also explore the cognitive effort required to listen in difficult auditory environments

Participants will undergo a series of tests assessing their ability to discern speech against different levels of background noise. These assessments will be paired with physiological measurements of inner ear and auditory brainstem activity, allowing the researchers to determine how the brain’s feedback mechanisms influence perception. By comparing individuals with and without self-reported hearing difficulties, the research team aims to identify specific deficits in the olivocochlear system that may contribute to these challenges.

“We hypothesize that medial olivocochlear reflex function will be reduced in the group that reports having significant difficulties because they have less noise reduction happening at the level of their inner ear,” Mertes said.

Measuring Listening Effort

Beyond understanding speech in noise, the study will also explore the cognitive effort required to listen in difficult auditory environments. Listening effort is a critical but often subjective aspect of hearing. Even if two individuals achieve similar results on a hearing test, one may expend significantly more mental energy to achieve the same level of comprehension.

Implications for Future Research and Interventions

The findings from this study could have significant implications for hearing health care. Currently, hearing aids and assistive devices primarily amplify sound, but they do not always enhance speech clarity in noisy environments. By better understanding the brain’s role in modulating auditory input, researchers may pave the way for new treatments or hearing aid technologies that target neural mechanisms rather than just the mechanical aspects of hearing loss.

For example, future hearing aids might be designed to simulate the brain’s natural medial olivocochlear efferent control system, selectively amplifying relevant sounds while suppressing background noise more effectively. Additionally, clinicians could use diagnostic tests based on medial olivocochlear efferent function to personalize treatment strategies, ensuring that interventions are tailored to an individual’s specific auditory processing profile.

A Step Toward Better Hearing Solutions

This study represents an important step in bridging the gap between neuroscience and audiology. By shedding light on the intricate relationship between the brain and the ear, researchers hope to improve outcomes for individuals struggling with speech-in-noise recognition.

“I’m currently focused on understanding the physiology that is involved in hearing in background noise,” Mertes said. “I’m hopeful that my work will help contribute to improved diagnosis and treatment of listening difficulties, especially for people with clinically normal hearing.”

Editor’s note:

To reach Vince Lara-Cinisomo, email vinlara@illinois.edu.
 

Related news

‘What Did You Say?’ Understanding speech in noise a common problem



A common complaint that audiologists hear from clients coming in for hearing assessments is difficulty hearing in noisy backgrounds. It’s a problem that affects millions of adults and can become more of a problem with age, but it also affects children and adolescents as well.

While the problem might be common, adequate ways of addressing the problem are not. Effective solutions require a deep understanding of the reasons the problem is occurring. Three faculty in the Department of Speech and Hearing Science—Assistant Professor Mary Flaherty, Associate Professor Dan Fogerty and Assistant Professor Ian Mertes—focus their research in this area with the goal of gaining that deep understanding and finding solutions in order to improve the quality of life of those who struggle with understanding speech in noise.

“If people are unable to hear clearly in noisy environments such as restaurants, it can negatively impact their ability to socialize and communicate in those settings and, ultimately, to enjoy those settings,” Mertes said.

Mechanics are There; Understanding is Not

While some might assume that hearing in noise is a problem of aging, it turns out that children can also have difficulty understanding speech in noisy environments. It’s known that children with normal hearing have fully developed auditory systems by their first birthday, but that their brains take longer—into their teenage years—to develop the ability to process speech in noise effectively. What isn’t known is why this is. That’s what Mary Flaherty wants to find out.

“We know it has something to do with attention and sound-source segregation, separating different sounds in the environment,” she said. “We also know children just need more information than adults. They aren’t as good as adults at putting puzzles together when they are missing pieces. But we don’t really understand what it is that children need to help them.” 

Flaherty’s concern is that children who struggle with understanding speech in complex acoustic environments may fall behind in school. Moreover, the true problem may go undiagnosed and the child labeled negatively by teachers and classmates. And if this is true of children with normal hearing, imagine the extra burden faced by children with hearing loss who experience greater difficulty understanding speech in noise.

Adults use cues such as voice pitch to focus on one speaker in noise and ignore everyone else. Children cannot do that. So what cues can help children? Flaherty currently is investigating talker familiarity. She worked with a graduate student in audiology to develop a game that familiarizes children with a voice while they’re playing. A pilot study in which children played the game 10 minutes a day for five days found that their speech-in-noise perception for that particular voice increased. Flaherty plans to pursue research that tests this phenomenon in the classroom.

This summer, she will collaborate with researchers at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago to investigate hearing-in-noise difficulties faced by children who use hearing aids. Among the issues she will investigate is whether talker familiarity also can help children with hearing loss, which has never before been studied. As she continues her research efforts, Flaherty hopes to identify primary factors that account for the long trajectory of children’s development of speech-in-noise perception, and to use the knowledge to improve hearing in noise, especially for clinical populations. She also collaborates with SHS colleague Pasquale Bottalico on classroom studies that they hope will lead to a method of predicting which children may have difficulty understanding speech in noise, identifying characteristics that they have in common, and recommending effective interventions.

More Cues, but More Potential Deficits with Age

Dan Fogerty focuses on older adults in his studies of how noise interferes with speech processing, how it impacts understanding a message and how it requires listeners to recruit other cognitive and sensory processes to help make sense of it.

A predominant perspective on how noise makes speech understanding difficult is that it exerts two primary effects: energetic masking and informational masking.

“In energetic masking, the noise covers up the speech energy in time and frequency,” Fogerty said. “Informational masking refers to all of the other things that might make it difficult, such as the message or familiarity of a competing talker that can draw your attention.”

Sometimes the noise dominates the signal received by the brain, depriving the listener of information. Speech dominates the signal at other times, and from these glimpses of information, listeners can piece together an interpretation of what is being said. Fogerty’s research uses glimpsing theory to examine what cues are available to the listener at any given time, but also extends the theory to how speech information changes over time.

“Amplitude modulation, the temporal rhythm of speech, is critical for understanding speech,” he said. “We’re finding that if the competing sounds vary similarly to the rhythmic aspects of speech, it can make speech understanding difficult. If we separate out these properties so that noise is varying at a faster or slower rate, then people are better able to glimpse or extract information.”

Fogerty’s primary research populations are individuals who have mild or moderate hearing loss as well as individuals who are aging with the typical sensory and cognitive changes that occur but without dementia or significant cognitive decline. He also tests college-age individuals so that effects related to aging or hearing loss are clearer. One thing he notes is important to remember is that being older doesn’t always mean performing more poorly on speech understanding tasks.

“We have a lot of older adults who do just as well or better than college students on some tasks,” he said. “That’s important for us because we want to know what is preserving their ability to understand speech in noise. What strategies are they using that are particularly helpful?”

His research goals are to contribute to the design of better hearing devices, but also to address issues that might not have a technology solution.

“That’s why we’re so interested in finding out what the abilities are that people bring to the task of listening in noise, and whether certain skills can be sharpened through training,” he said.

The Physiology Behind it All

From animal and human studies, we know that when sound enters the ear, the brain has the ability to fine tune the sound by controlling how the middle and inner ear responds. Animal studies have shown that these responses can help encode sounds in background noise. 

Ian Mertes is studying these top-down mechanisms in young adults with normal hearing to determine if they also help humans understand speech in noise. Both mechanisms rely on the brain stem. One mechanism contracts a muscle, which pulls on a bone of the middle ear, affecting how noise is transmitted through the auditory system. It can reduce the noise. The brain stem also can change how the inner ear amplifies sound, which also can turn down noise. 

“I’m looking at how these two mechanisms, which are reflexes, work together,” Mertes said. “They may work at different frequency regions, the lower frequencies or pitches and the middle frequencies or pitches. Working together, they may help people hear in background noise.”

Using otoacoustic emissions, a clinical audiology test of inner ear function, his studies have shown the physiological mechanisms are correlated with the ability to understand speech in noise. But, he said, it’s complicated.

“It can depend on how we do the physiological measurement, the types of sounds we present to the ears, and the speech perception task,” he said. His current focus on individuals without hearing problems gives him the “best look” at normally functioning auditory systems. “They have the most robust physiological responses and are able to participate in the perceptual tasks, and that can help me create a good template for adapting those measurements when I extend my work to clinical populations.”

Working with Vanderbilt University colleague Ben Hornsby, an associate professor of hearing and speech sciences, Mertes also plans to add another auditory concept called listening effort to the physiological picture of understanding speech in noise. Do individuals with weak top-down reflexes have to put more effort into completing speech perception tasks? What are the consequences of this additional effort?

The in-depth knowledge Mertes is gaining through his research may help explain why some young adults with clinically normal hearing report having difficulty hearing in background noise, another area of interest to him.

Summing up what he hopes will be the outcome of his research program, he said, “I’d ultimately like to make a significant contribution to treatment—strengthening auditory reflexes or simulating them in devices, increasing understanding of messages while reducing the effort it takes to reach that understanding.”

Related news

Department of Speech and Hearing Science
901 South Sixth Street
M/C 482
Champaign, IL 61820
217-333-2230