==== Front Int J Environ Res Public Health Int J Environ Res Public Health ijerph International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 1661-7827 1660-4601 MDPI 33276507 10.3390/ijerph17238963 ijerph-17-08963 Review Occupational Noise: Auditory and Non-Auditory Consequences Sheppard Adam 1* https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8776-0421Ralli Massimo 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5145-3152Gilardi Antonio 2 Salvi Richard 1 1 Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences and Center for Hearing and Deafness, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14221, USA; salvi@buffalo.edu 2 Department of Sense Organs, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; massimo.ralli@uniroma1.it (M.R.); antonio.gilardi@uniroma1.it (A.G.) * Correspondence: asheppar@buffalo.edu 02 12 2020 12 2020 17 23 896323 10 2020 22 11 2020 © 2020 by the authors.2020Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Occupational noise exposure accounts for approximately 16% of all disabling hearing losses, but the true value and societal costs may be grossly underestimated because current regulations only identify hearing impairments in the workplace if exposures result in audiometric threshold shifts within a limited frequency region. Research over the past several decades indicates that occupational noise exposures can cause other serious auditory deficits such as tinnitus, hyperacusis, extended high-frequency hearing loss, and poor speech perception in noise. Beyond the audiogram, there is growing awareness that hearing loss is a significant risk factor for other debilitating and potentially life-threatening disorders such as cardiovascular disease and dementia. This review discusses some of the shortcomings and limitations of current noise regulations in the United States and Europe. occupational noise exposureultra-high frequencyotoacoustic emissionshidden hearing losstinnitushyperacusisdementiasound pressure levelcontinuous equivalent level ==== Body 1. Introduction The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that ~16% of all disabling hearing loss stems from occupational noise exposure [1]. However, this number underestimates the global health burden of occupational noise because the metrics used to compute occupational noise-induced hearing loss fail to consider other potentially debilitating hearing-related impairments such as tinnitus, hyperacusis, and deteriorated ability to understand speech in noise. Moreover, current regulations do not take into account widespread co-morbidities associated with noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) such as cognitive decline, social isolation, increased stress, anxiety, depression, and higher risk of cardiovascular disease [2,3,4,5]. Decades of research has led to the development of guidelines designed to protect individuals from hazardous occupational noise exposure [6,7,8]. Current noise regulations are largely based upon research studies that identified noise conditions (e.g., duration, intensity, peak pressure, spectrum, and intermittency) that resulted in audiometric threshold shifts within frequencies responsible for speech understanding. New research suggests this approach may underestimate the impact of low-intensity, long-duration noise exposures [9,10,11,12,13], fails to consider auditory deficits that occur without concomitant hearing loss [14,15,16], and overlooks non-auditory health consequences of noise-induced hearing loss [17,18,19,20]. In the following sections, we briefly review current occupational noise regulations and discuss additional auditory and non-auditory consequences of occupational noise that negatively impact quality of life and long-term health. 2. Occupational Noise Regulations Some of the prominent governmental bodies that have established regulations/recommendations to avoid hazardous noise exposure include the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [7], the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health [8], and the European Union (EU) [21]. The current noise regulations aim to reduce the risk of hearing loss at frequencies important for speech perception, but do not address other auditory and non-auditory deficits. Contemporary regulations consider four major interacting variables when determining if a noise dose is hazardous. First, and most obvious, is the noise sound pressure level (SPL), represented in the logarithmic unit of decibels (dB). Second is the spectral content; noise levels are most commonly measured using the dB(A) scale, which attenuates sounds below 1 and above 8 kHz. This filtering is done because high-frequency noise (namely those centered around 4 kHz) pose a significant risk for auditory threshold shifts [22], although for extremely high intensity sounds, it is more common to measure sound intensity using the dB(C) scale, which has little sound attenuation except for frequencies below approximately 60 and above 8000 Hz. The third factor important for calculating noise dosages is the duration of exposure; the longer the noise exposure duration, the greater the risk of audiometric threshold shifts, at least until thresholds reach an asymptote at durations ≥ 24 h [23]. Hence, when determining if a noise exposure is hazardous, both the noise level and duration need to be evaluated simultaneously. A common method of integrating both the noise intensity and duration is the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq), which represents the energy mean of the noise level averaged over a defined period. When Leq acoustic measurements are made for 8 h with the A-weighting filter, the term LAeq,8h is used to indicate the type of frequency weighting and the duration of the exposures. Finally, the fourth factor, which is mainly considered in environmental noise ordinances, is the time of day. Several studies have suggested that nighttime noise exposure increases the risk of hearing loss, annoyance, risk of cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment [17,24]. For environmental noise, the time of day when the noise exposure occurs is expressed as LDEN (day/evening/night level), which indicates the average A-weighted sound pressure level over a 24-h period with an additional 10-dB penalty during nighttime hours (11:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.) or a 5-dB penalty during evening hours (7:00 p.m.–11:00 p.m.) [18] (i.e., 10 dB or 5 dB is added to actual Leq measure to reflect night or evening exposure, respectively). The combination of these factors is the basis for understanding current occupational and environmental noise regulations. 2.1. OSHA In the United States, OSHA, the regulatory body responsible for establishing guidelines to avoid hazardous occupational noise, defines the permissible exposure level (PEL) as 90 dB(A) for 8 h. The PEL is adjusted for exposure durations shorter or longer than 8 h using a 5-dB exchange rate. Accordingly, the PEL would be 95 dB(A) for an exposure duration of 4 h, whereas the PEL would be 85 dB(A) for a 16-h exposure [7]. Furthermore, OSHA limits the peak sound pressure level of noise exposure to 140 dB(C), independent of exposure duration. Although OSHA indicates 90 dB(A) as the PEL, employers are required to establish a hearing conservation program when the exposure level reaches 85 dB(A) [7]. OSHA requires conservation programs to include (1) annual audiometric assessments, (2) employee training on the risks associated with excessive noise exposure, and (3) hearing protective devices to be worn by employees [7]. Annual threshold assessments conduct pure tone thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 kHz using air conduction transducers. The annual thresholds are then compared to the worker’s baseline thresholds obtained at the time of employment to determine if a significant threshold shift occurred. Although frequencies are measured at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 kHz, a significant threshold shift is considered present only when thresholds increase an average of 10 dB or more at 2, 3, and 4 kHz in either ear. 2.2. NIOSH While OSHA is responsible for establishing regulations, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-596) tasked NIOSH with providing recommendations to avoid hazardous exposure to occupational noise. Importantly, these recommendations were meant to include occupational noise dosages that would reduce the risk of employees having “diminished health, functional capacity, or life expectancy as a result of his or her work experience” [8], health metrics that are not captured by basic threshold shifts. NIOSH first provided recommended exposure limits (REL) in 1972, and revised the RELs in 1998 [8]. Current recommendations are slightly stricter than those regulated by OSHA. NOISH’s REL defines 85 dB(A) for 8 h as the recommended exposure limit, and incorporates a 3-dB exchange rate. The 3-dB exchange is based on the equal energy principle, since an increase or decrease of 3 dB doubles or halves the total noise energy, respectively [25]. While this may not seem like a large difference, some studies indicate that deploying a 3-dB exchange rate in OSHA regulations would identify 1.5–3 times as many workers as being potentially at risk for NIHL [6,26]. In fact, the debate over the use of a 3-dB or 5-dB exchange rate has been ongoing for some time, and still continues today [27,28,29,30,31,32]. NIOSH also recommends an upper ceiling peak pressure limit of 140 dB(A) and recommends that a hearing conservation program be established for workers exposed to an 8-h time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 dB(A). The prevention program recommended by NIOSH is similar to what is regulated by OSHA; however, there is a notable difference in their criteria for determining what constitutes a noise-induced threshold shift. NIOSH recommends a standard threshold shift during annual threshold monitoring of 15 dB(A) at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 kHz in either ear, spanning a much wider range of frequencies than OSHAs criteria [8]. 2.3. EU In the European Union, EU-OSHA regulates occupational noise based on the directive 2003/10/EC promulgated by the European Parliament [33]. The directive characterizes noise hazardousness at three distinct levels, which are referred to as the lower action level, the upper action level, and the noise limit level. Occupational environments are categorized into a lower action level if the LAeq,8h (called a daily noise exposure level and denoted in the directive as LEX) reaches 80 dB(A) or a peak pressure value of 135 dB(C). If noise reaches a LAeq, 8h of 85 dB(A) or has a peak sound pressure value of 137 dB(C), it is classified as an upper action limit level. Finally, the ceiling threshold for acceptable noise exposure is an LAeq, 8h of 87 dB(A) or a peak sound pressure limit of 140 dB(C), and there is no permissible exposure above this ceiling noise limit. The lower and upper action levels are distinct from each other in that they require increasing conservation practices, respectively. When noise reaches the lower action level, employers must make hearing protection devices available to employees and make annual hearing monitoring available; whereas if noise exceeds the upper action level, these practices stay in place and the employer must also take actions to actively reduce the noise level, either through engineering controls (e.g., noise attenuation) or organizational practices (e.g., reduced exposure time). 3. Environmental Noise Regulations Recently, the WHO recommended guidelines for environmental noise exposures in the European Region [20]. It is recommended that: (1) Road traffic noise be limited to 53 LDEN and 45 dB LNIGHT, (2) railway noise be limited to 54 LDEN and 44 dB LNIGHT, (3) aircraft noise be limited to 45 LDEN and 40 dB LNIGHT, (4) wind turbine noise be limited to 45 dB LDEN, and that (5) other leisure activities be limited to 70 dB LAeq,24 h [20]. In the U.S., environmental noise exposures are largely regulated by individual state and city ordinances and vary greatly by region. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended that an individual not exceed a daily noise dosage of 70 dBLAeq, 24 h, that community indoor levels be maintained below 45 dBLeq, and that certain community outdoor areas be maintained below 55 dBLeq [34]. It is important to consider environmental noise exposure because it occurs alongside occupational noise exposures and may contribute to hearing loss. However, environmental noise is not accounted for when considering what occupational noise levels are considered hazardous to hearing. Therefore, individuals with high exposure to environmental noise at home or during leisure activities are at greater risk for hearing-related deficits if they are additionally exposed to high levels of occupational noise. The regulations outlined above were not designed to protect the entire working population from noise-induced hearing loss. Rather, they are meant to protect against a substantial portion of occupational NIHL while maintaining a feasible cost–benefit ratio. For instance, a 40-year lifetime exposure to NIOSH’s REL still holds a risk of developing NIHL of ~8% and a 40-year lifetime exposure to OSHA’s PEL criteria still has a risk of NIHL of 25% [1,8]. Deploying comprehensive hearing conservation programs (i.e., protecting 100% of workers) may not be financially feasible [35]. Studies estimate that the cost of hearing conservation programs are on average ~$300–350/worker, and still yield a hearing impairment prevalence of ~15% [35,36]. Therefore, governmental regulations attempt to strike a balance between limiting hazardous noise exposure and maintaining economic growth and development. However, this balancing act could have unforeseen future consequences since current regulations only consider the impact of noise exposures on hearing thresholds and fail to consider several other noise-induced consequences, some of which come with a hefty financial burden to the healthcare system [37,38]. The consequences overlooked by contemporary occupational noise regulations can be broadly categorized into (1) auditory deficits beyond threshold shifts and (2) non-auditory health consequences as discussed below. 4. Significant Auditory Deficits Beyond Threshold Shift 4.1. Ultra-High Frequency Hearing Loss The human cochlea can process a wide range of frequencies from ~20–20,000 Hz; however, standard clinical audiometric evaluations only sample hearing acuity from 250 to 8000 Hz, since they are putatively the most important for speech comprehension. The cochlea appears especially sensitive to noise-induced damage in the frequency regions between 3–6 kHz [39]. Consequently, the pure tone audiogram of patients exposed to hazardous levels of noise often take on a notched configuration centered around the 4-kHz frequency. For decades, the 4-kHz “noise notch” has been considered a hallmark of NIHL [22], and as such, the 4-kHz frequency region has been weighted more heavily when screening for audiometric shifts due to occupational noise [7]. However, recent studies suggest that frequencies >8 kHz may be more sensitive to noise-induced damage [40,41,42,43]. Riga et al. screened 151 noise-exposed workers’ hearing annually from 0.25 to 8 kHz and found that ultra-high frequency (12.5, 14, and 16 kHz) thresholds deteriorated the earliest, during the first decade of employment, and that elevated thresholds in the 2–4 kHz region were not observed until the second decade of employment [43]. In contrast, OSHA only assesses thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 kHz and only flags a significant shift when thresholds worsen (i.e., increase) by an average of 10 dB 2, 3, and 4 kHz. NIOSH’s recommendations for noise monitoring are more sensitive, flagging a significant shift in thresholds when any 15 shift occurs at frequencies as high as 6 kHz, but still fails to consider noise-induced threshold shifts at the most sensitive frequencies (i.e., >10 kHz). 4.2. Sub-Clinical OHC Dysfunction The cochlea possesses a finely-tuned, biological electro-mechanical system that amplifies sound-induced pressure fluctuations. This inherent non-linear amplification of the cochlea lowers hearing thresholds and enhances frequency resolution, thereby improving hearing abilities in both quiet and noise [44]. Cochlear outer hair cells (OHCs) play a critical role in the non-linear amplification properties of the cochlea [45], but are also highly sensitive to noise-induced damage [46]. One assessment tool that is particularly sensitive to noise-induced OHC dysfunction is distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) which can be measured up to 16 kHz with some clinical instruments [47]. DPOAEs are generated by the electromotile response of OHCs, mediated by the motor protein prestin, and driven in part by the +80 mV endocochlear potential [45,48]. Contrary to common thought, DPOAEs are not tightly correlated to pure tone thresholds. In fact, it is relatively common for individuals with a history of noise exposure to have clinically normal audiometric thresholds (≤ 25 dB hearing level (HL), but show significantly lower (worse) DPOAE amplitudes [49,50,51,52,53,54]. Indeed, several studies have indicated that DPOAEs could serve as a more sensitive tool for identifying noise-induced damage in occupational settings [41,52,54,55,56,57]. For example, in a sample of 76 military personnel, those with prior noise exposure demonstrated significantly lower DPOAE amplitudes, even when thresholds were normal [54]. In addition, test re-test reliability in OAEs also demonstrates less variance than pure-tone thresholds [52,58]. In a sample of 38 subjects, OAE measures demonstrated test re-test variance of 2.9–3.1 dB (standard deviation), whereas pure tone thresholds had a variance of 4.9 dB [52], a critical difference when thresholds are tested in 5-dB steps and significant threshold shifts are defined by differences of 10 dB. Hence, OAE measures appear to be more sensitive at detecting early signs of noise-induced damage, indicating that OHC function has already deteriorated by the time pure-tone threshold shifts are detected during annual hearing conservation testing. 4.3. Damage to IHCs and Afferent Synapses Historically, OHCs were considered the cochlear structure most sensitive to noise-induced damage. However, recent animal studies now suggest that synaptic connections between inner hair cells (IHCs) and type I afferent nerve fibers could be more sensitive to noise damage than OHCs [59,60]. Immunohistochemical studies indicate that short-duration, high-intensity exposure to noise (~100 dB SPL, 2 h) yields selective damage to low-spontaneous rate high-threshold afferent nerve fibers in animals [61,62]. Interestingly, synapses for high-spontaneous rate fibers that are important for detecting low-intensity sounds (i.e., audiometric thresholds) are largely unaffected. Similar observations have been made in post-mortem human temporal bones, suggesting that cochlear synaptopathy likely also occurs in humans [63]; however, the functional consequences of synaptopathy in humans remain controversial [64,65,66]. In the context of occupational noise regulations, the threat of noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy occurring in humans seems somewhat low if regulations are strictly adhered to. Synaptopathic damage occurring in rodents is most reliably seen after exposures that would exceed the OSHA PEL (e.g., 2-h exposure would have maximum PEL of ~95 dB(A)) making such exposures impermissible without the use of hearing protection [67]. Nevertheless, this assessment could be flawed since evidence suggests that there is relatively poor compliance with the use of hearing protection in occupational settings (~20–40% non-compliant) [26,68,69]. As such, further research is needed to fully characterize the risk of occupational noise inducing cochlear synaptopathy in humans. 4.4. Tinnitus and Hyperacusis Tinnitus is a phantom auditory perception, described as a ringing, buzzing, or hissing sensation that can occur following excessive noise exposure [70]. Approximately 10–15% of adults experience tinnitus [71], and approximately 1% have debilitating tinnitus for which they seek medical treatment [72]. The prevalence of tinnitus is higher among adults exposed to occupational noise (~15%) compared to workers who report no occupational noise (~5%) [73]. Others have indicated the prevalence of tinnitus among noise exposed workers could be as high as 66% [55]. Similarly, noise-exposed combat veterans show a particularly high prevalence of tinnitus [37], in some cases as high as 50–70% [74,75]. Tinnitus not only has psychosocial consequences, but also financial ones for the Veteran Administration (VA), which lists tinnitus as the most prevalent and costly disability in the VA healthcare system. Recent estimates of VA disability payments for tinnitus totaled to a staggering $2 billion [76,77]. Hyperacusis, an abnormally low tolerance to moderate-intensity everyday sounds [78], is another auditory perceptual disorder that can present independent of hearing loss. Hyperacusis is highly comorbid with tinnitus, with approximately 86% of hyperacusis patients also reporting tinnitus [78,79]. Animal models suggest that excessive noise exposure can lower loudness discomfort levels (i.e., hyperacusis) [80,81,82]. However, there is a dearth of data linking hyperacusis to occupational noise exposure [83]. The most relevant studies of noise-induced hyperacusis come from those of professional musicians, which indicate hyperacusis has a prevalence of approximately ~18–28% when it occurs alongside other auditory disorders [84] and a prevalence of ~6% when it is the only reported hearing disorder [85]. Data from female pre-school teachers exposed to noise at work suggests a model of hyperacusis whereby the prevalence is increased by additional factors such as stress, annoyance, or unrelated leisure noise [86]. The exact pathophysiological mechanism(s) responsible for tinnitus and hyperacusis remains enigmatic. However, many researchers believe tinnitus emerges from excessive spontaneous neural activity [87,88,89,90] and hyperacusis results from enhanced sound-evoked neural activity [90] triggered by excessive/aberrant central gain control mechanisms [91,92,93]. Central gain functions in a homeostatic manner, attempting to centrally compensate for a reduced neural output peripherally (i.e., cochlea afferent fibers). Therefore, any of the previously discussed pathologies undetectable by threshold measures (i.e., ultra-high frequencies, sub-clinical OHC dysfunction, cochlear synaptopathy) could potentially be the underlying cause of tinnitus and/or hyperacusis. 4.5. Hearing in Noise Hearing in the presence of background noise is the most common hearing-related complaint and can occur in individuals with and without normal audiometric thresholds [14,94]. Difficulties hearing in noise, despite having normal audiometric thresholds, has been referred to over the decades as obscure auditory dysfunction [95], King Kopetzky syndrome [96], auditory processing disorder [97], and most recently hidden hearing loss [15]. Studies have yet to come to a conclusion on whether noise exposure directly results in hearing in noise difficulties [98,99]. On one hand, some have indicated that noise exposure results in poorer speech discrimination in background noise [15,100], while many others have failed to observe this association [64,101,102,103,104,105]. The pathophysiological mechanisms that make it difficult to discriminate in background noise are not fully understood; however, mounting evidence suggests it could be due to selective damage to IHCs and/or auditory nerve fibers. When chinchillas are treated with carboplatin, a commonly used anti-cancer drug, they exhibit a unique pattern of damage that selective destroys IHCs, while leaving OHCs intact. Despite this damage, animals display normal threshold acuity in quiet [16]. However, when thresholds are measured in the presence of background noise, chinchillas with selective IHC loss display significantly worse thresholds [106,107]. Moreover, one of the hallmarks of auditory neuropathy, a disorder where the pathology occurs within IHCs, afferent synapses, or spiral ganglion neurons, is difficulty hearing in noise [108,109]. Like the chinchilla model, these patients also have difficulty detecting tones in the presence of background noise [110]. Difficulty hearing in noise is commonly linked to the discussion of hidden hearing loss (a term some use synonymously with cochlear synaptopathy). If findings in animal models hold true in the translation to human studies, cochlear synaptopathy may provide an explanation for why noise exposure can impair hearing in noise. For example, evidence suggests that selective damage to IHCs and auditory nerve fibers does not affect thresholds, but does impair supra-threshold processing in noise [16,106,107]. In the interim, it is important to recognize other pathologies resulting from excessive noise that likely result in hearing in noise deficits. For instance, OHCs are also critically important for hearing in the presence of background noise [44], and their abnormal function can go undetected on standard audiometric assessments [52,54]. Furthermore, hearing loss occurring at ultra-high frequencies can also contribute to hearing in noise deficits [101,111,112,113,114], and may be more sensitive to noise damage than previously thought [43]. Taken together, several auditory deficits occurring from noise exposure can occur beyond the standard pure tone audiogram and are not considered in today’s hearing conservation programs. Outside of the auditory realm, recent studies also indicate several non-auditory consequences of excessive noise exposure, some of which are discussed in the following section. 5. Non-Auditory Health Consequences 5.1. Stress Unregulated stress responses can have large implications for numerous biological functions. The body’s stress response system attempts to maintain homeostasis through hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis negative feedback. In general, the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus activates the HPA axis through the secretion of corticotropic releasing hormone (CRH), which provokes the release of adrenal corticotropic hormone (ACTH) from the anterior pituitary. ACTH then travels via the blood stream to the adrenal glands, which sit atop the kidneys, and activate the release of stress hormones such as cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline When levels of stress hormones are sufficiently high they interact with the hypothalamus and hippocampus to shut off the HPA axis, resulting in negative feedback [115]. Chronic exposure to noise can be an indirect stressor capable of imposing a host of stress-induced scenarios [116]. For instance, chronic exposure to noise can result in sleep disturbances, increased difficulty communicating, and disrupted cognition [17], which in turn can disturb the HPA stress response system. Both occupational noise and chronic environmental noise can result in increased stress hormones such as cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline [19,117]. Interestingly, changes in stress hormone levels are linked to the intensity and temporal aspects of the noise exposure. Intense, acute noise presented near the aural threshold of pain (130–140 dB SPL) results in increased release of cortisol [118], whereas acute noise presented at levels of 90–100 dB(A) increases the release of adrenaline and noradrenaline [119]. Furthermore, if the source of noise is novel to an individual’s environment (non-habituated), it is likely to result in increased release of adrenaline, whereas if the individual has been chronically exposed to the noise (habituated), the body is likely to display chronically elevated levels of noradrenaline [118]. Surprisingly, low levels of noise, far below the standards for protecting against hearing loss, can initiate the stress response. Increases in adrenaline and noradrenaline have been observed following environmental noise exposure as low as 60 dBLAeq if the noise was disrupting to active processes (conversation, concentration, reactions, etc.). During sleep, traffic noise levels as low as 30 dBLAeq have been shown to increase cortisol release [117]. In the context of occupational noise exposure, cortisol has shown a dose-dependent increase with increasing noise exposure levels [120]. The relationship between noise exposure and the body’s stress response is critical since prolonged levels of stress can increase the risk of life-threatening health conditions like cardiovascular disease [121,122] 5.2. Cardiovascular Disease Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is an umbrella term used to refer to a host of disorders of the heart and blood vessels. CVDs are the number one cause of death globally, responsible for ~31% of all deaths [123], and pose an enormous fiscal burden on healthcare systems [124]. Chronic activation of the body’s stress response system is a recognized risk factor for the development of CVDs [125]. Since chronic exposure to noise effects the body’s stress response (discussed above), it is also thought to increase the risk of CVDs. Both occupational and environmental noise exposure can increase the risk of CVDs. For example, in a large sample of industrially noise-exposed workers, the relative risk for developing coronary heart diseases was as high as 1.48, significantly higher than in age-matched, unexposed workers [126]. Similarly, individuals with higher levels of residential traffic noise are at greater risk for developing hypertension [127]. These results suggest that workers exposed to occupational noise in addition to residential traffic noise would be at even greater risk for CVD. However, it is difficult to make definitive associations between noise exposure and CVDs due to a large variety of confounding variables such as genetic differences, diet, history of smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, etc. Further research is needed to fully characterize the risk that noise exposure has on developing CVDs. 5.3. Cognition There is growing evidence to suggest that age-related hearing loss increases the risk of cognitive decline in older adults. This once provocative finding is supported by several meta-analytic reviews [128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138]. In fact, some have reported the association between hearing loss and dementia to be so strong that approximately 9.1% of all dementias could result from untreated hearing loss [131]. Like CVDs, the fiscal burden of dementia on today’s healthcare system is significant. In 2009, the cost of dementia-related healthcare was a staggering $422 billion [132]. Since it is extremely difficult to disentangle the contribution of past noise exposures on age-related hearing loss, it is plausible that noise could play a role in developing dementia. Indeed, animal studies support the notion that exposure to noise can disrupt cognitive functions such as learning and memory. Rats’ exposure to traumatic noise shows reduced neurogenesis in the hippocampus, a brain region critically important for spatial orientation and memory. Moreover, reduced neurogenesis is associated with deficits on learning and memory tasks [139,140,141]. Furthermore, even when animals are exposed to seemingly safe noise levels (75 dBLAeq, 8 h) for extended periods, they can display poorer performance on learning and memory tasks [142]. Similar to the theories of noise-induced CVDs, noise-induced consequences on learning, memory, and brain function could also be mediated by the altered stress responses, given that noise-induced hearing loss upregulates glucocorticoid receptors in the hippocampus, a critical component of the negative feedback network in the HPA axis [143]. 6. Summary Exposure to occupational noise poses a significant public health concern. It is well documented that exposure to noise above a critical level results in unrepairable sensorineural hearing loss. Noise regulations established for occupational settings do not protect 100% of workers from NIHL, but rather strike a balance between hearing conservation and economic development. The current occupational and environmental noise regulations may significantly underestimate the adverse health and societal cost of noise-induced hearing loss. There is growing awareness that noise exposures, even at moderate levels, may contribute to a host of other auditory and non-auditory consequences that can go undetected in annual hearing conservation monitoring programs. Taken together, these results suggest that the true fiscal consequences to our healthcare systems may be far greater than anticipated. Further research is needed to fully characterize the auditory and non-auditory consequences associated with occupational noise. Future research could uncloak (1) methods for earlier detection of auditory damage, (2) risks associated with combined noise exposure sources (i.e., leisure, environmental, and occupational) and (3) establish dose–response relationships between various noise conditions and non-auditory consequences. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Author Contributions A.S. wrote and edited the manuscript. M.R., A.G. and R.S. provided insights on content and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding This research was funded by a New Investigator Award from The American Academy of Audiology Foundation (85332-1155379-1) to AS. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. List of Abbreviations OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration NIOSH National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health EU European Union SPL sound pressure level dB decibels Leq equivalent continuous sound level LAeq,8 h A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level; 8 hours LDEN day–evening–night level PEL permissible exposure level REL recommended exposure limit TWA time-weighted average WHO World Health Organization EPA Environmental Protection Agency DPOAE distortion product otoacoustic emission VA Veterans Administration HPA hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal CRH corticotropic-releasing hormone; ACTH adrenal corticotropic hormone; CVD cardiovascular disease ==== Refs References 1. Nelson D.I. Nelson R.Y. Concha-Barrientos M. Fingerhut M. The global burden of occupational noise-induced hearing loss Am. J. Ind. Med. 2005 48 446 458 10.1002/ajim.20223 16299704 2. Mick P. Kawachi I. Lin F.R. The association between hearing loss and social isolation in older adults Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2014 150 378 384 10.1177/0194599813518021 24384545 3. Gan W.Q. Davies H.W. Koehoorn M. Brauer M. Association of long-term exposure to community noise and traffic-related air p ollution with coronary heart disease mortality Am. J. Epidemiol. 2012 175 898 906 10.1093/aje/kwr424 22491084 4. Li C.M. Zhang X. Hoffman H.J. Cotch M.F. Themann C.L. Wilson M.R. Hearing impairment associated with depression in US adults, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005–2010 JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2014 140 293 302 10.1001/jamaoto.2014.42 24604103 5. Fortunato S. Forli F. Guglielmi V. De Corso E. Paludetti G. Berrettini S. Fetoni A.R. A review of new insights on the association between hearing loss and cognitive decline in ageing Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2016 36 155 166 27214827 6. Sriwattanatamma P. Breysse P. Comparison of NIOSH noise criteria and OSHA hearing conservation criteria Am. J. Ind. Med. 2000 37 334 338 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(200004)37:4<334::AID-AJIM2>3.0.CO;2-Z 10706744 7. OSHA Occupational noise exposure In Labor, United States Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration 1981 Available online: https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.95 (accessed on 18 June 2020) 8. NIOSH Criteria for a Recommended Standard in Services Education and Information Division National Institue for Occupational Safety and Health Cincinnati, OH, USA 1998 9. Sheppard A. Liu X. Alkharabsheh A. Chen G.D. Salvi R. Intermittent Low-level Noise Causes Negative Neural Gain in the Inferior Colliculus Neuroscience 2019 407 135 145 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.11.013 30458217 10. Sheppard A. Liu X. Ding D. Salvi R. Auditory central gain compensates for changes in cochlear output after prolonged low-level noise exposure Neurosci. Lett. 2018 687 183 188 10.1016/j.neulet.2018.09.054 30273699 11. Sheppard A.M. Chen G.D. Manohar S. Ding D. Hu B.H. Sun W. Zhao J. Salvi R. Prolonged low-level noise-induced plasticity in the peripheral and central auditory system of rats Neuroscience 2017 359 159 171 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.07.005 28711622 12. Pienkowski M. Munguia R. Eggermont J.J. Effects of passive, moderate-level sound exposure on the mature auditory cortex: Spectral edges, spectrotemporal density, and real-world noise Hear. Res. 2013 296 121 130 10.1016/j.heares.2012.11.006 23154196 13. Zhou X. Merzenich M.M. Environmental noise exposure degrades normal listening processes Nat. Commun. 2012 3 843 10.1038/ncomms1849 22588305 14. Plack C.J. Barker D. Prendergast G. Perceptual consequences of “hidden” hearing loss Trends Hear. 2014 18 10.1177/2331216514550621 15. Liberman M.C. Epstein M.J. Cleveland S.S. Wang H. Maison S.F. Toward a differential diagnosis of hidden hearing loss in humans PLoS ONE 2016 11 e0162726 10.1371/journal.pone.0162726 27618300 16. Lobarinas E. Salvi R. Ding D. Insensitivity of the audiogram to carboplatin induced inner hair cell loss in chinchillas Hear. Res. 2013 302 113 120 10.1016/j.heares.2013.03.012 23566980 17. Passchier-Vermeer W. Passchier W.F. Noise exposure and public health Environ. Health Perspect. 2000 108 Suppl. 1 123 131 10698728 18. Basner M. Babisch W. Davis A. Brink M. Clark C. Janssen S. Stansfeld S. Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health Lancet 2014 383 1325 1332 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61613-X 24183105 19. Stansfeld S.A. Matheson M.P. Noise pollution: Non-auditory effects on health Br. Med. Bull. 2003 68 243 257 10.1093/bmb/ldg033 14757721 20. WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region 2018 Available online: https://www.euro.who.int/en/publications/abstracts/environmental-noise-guidelines-for-the-european-region-2018 (accessed on 18 June 2020) 21. Directive C. 86/188/EEC of 12 May 1986 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to noise at work OJ L137 1986 24 Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31986L0188 (accessed on 18 June 2020) 22. Cooper J.C. Owen J.H. Audiologic profile of noise-induced hearing loss Arch. Otolaryngol. 1976 102 148 150 10.1001/archotol.1976.00780080070007 1267690 23. Melnick W. Maves M. Asymptotic threshold shift (ATS) in man from 24 hour exposure to continuous noise Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1974 83 820 828 10.1177/000348947408300619 24. Basinou V. Park J.S. Cederroth C.R. Canlon B. Circadian regulation of auditory function Hear. Res. 2017 347 47 55 10.1016/j.heares.2016.08.018 27665709 25. Eldred K. Gannon W. Von Gierke H. Criteria for Short Time Exposure of Personnel to High Intensity jet Aircraft Noise WADC TN. Wright-Patterson AFB Fairborn, OH, USA 1955 55 355 26. Daniell W.E. Swan S.S. McDaniel M.M. Camp J.E. Cohen M.A. Stebbins J.G. Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programmes after 20 years of regulations in the United States Occup. Environ. Med. 2006 63 343 351 10.1136/oem.2005.024588 16551755 27. Dobie R.A. Clark W.W. Response to Suter and NIOSH Ear Hear. 2015 36 492 495 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000166 25866947 28. Dobie R.A. Clark W.W. Exchange rates for intermittent and fluctuating occupational noise: A systematic review of studies of human permanent threshold shift Ear Hear. 2014 35 86 96 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182a143ec 24366410 29. Dobie R.A. Clark W.W. Kallogjeri D. Spitznagel E.L. Exchange rate and risk of noise-induced hearing loss in construction workers Ann. Work Expo. Health. 2018 62 1176 1178 10.1093/annweh/wxy073 30107470 30. Suter A.H. Occupational Hearing Loss from Non-Gaussian Noise Seminars in Hearing Thieme Medical Publishers New York, NY, USA 2017 225 31. Suter A.H. Exchange Rates for Intermittent and Fluctuating Occupational Noise: A Systematic Review of Studies of Human Permanent Threshold Shift Ear Hear. 2015 36 485 487 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000164 25866945 32. Suter A.H. The Relationship of the Exchange Rate to Noise-Induced Hearing Loss 1992 Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/00210240.html (accessed on 19 June 2020) 33. Parliament E. Official Journal of the European Union Directive 2003/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003: On the Minimum Health and Safety Requirements Regarding the Exposure of Workers to the Risks Arising from Physical Agents (Noise) Official Journal of the European Union 2003 Available online: https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/directives/82 (accessed on 19 June 2020) 34. EPA Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requesite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety Office of Noise Abatement and Contro United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC, USA 1974 35. Dobie R.A. Cost-effective hearing conservation: Regulatory and research priorities Ear Hear. 2018 39 621 630 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000523 29251690 36. Sayler S.K. Rabinowitz P.M. Cantley L.F. Galusha D. Neitzel R.L. Costs and effectiveness of hearing conservation programs at 14 US metal manufacturing facilities Int. J. Audiol. 2018 57 Suppl. 1 S3 S11 10.1080/14992027.2017.1410237 37. Theodoroff S.M. Lewis M.S. Folmer R.L. Henry J.A. Carlson K.F. Hearing Impairment and Tinnitus: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes in US Service Members and Veterans Deployed to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Epidemiol. Rev. 2015 37 71 85 10.1093/epirev/mxu005 25600417 38. Hurd M.D. Martorell P. Delavande A. Mullen K.J. Langa K.M. Monetary costs of dementia in the United States N. Engl. J. Med. 2013 368 1326 1334 10.1056/NEJMsa1204629 23550670 39. Emmerich E. Richter F. Linss V. Linss W. Frequency-specific cochlear damage in guinea pig after exposure to different types of realistic industrial noise Hear. Res. 2005 201 90 98 10.1016/j.heares.2004.09.009 15721564 40. Ahmed H.O. Dennis J.H. Badran O. Ismail M. Ballal S.G. Ashoor A. Jerwood D. High-frequency (10–18 kHz) hearing thresholds: Reliability, and effects of age and occupational noise exposure Occup. Med. (Lond.) 2001 51 245 258 10.1093/occmed/51.4.245 11463869 41. Mehrparvar A.H. Mirmohammadi S.J. Davari M.H. Mostaghaci M. Mollasadeghi A. Bahaloo M. Hashemi S.H. Conventional Audiometry, Extended High-Frequency Audiometry, and DPOAE for Early Diagnosis of NIHL Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 2014 16 e9628 10.5812/ircmj.9628 24719719 42. Mehrparvar A.H. Mirmohammadi S.J. Ghoreyshi A. Mollasadeghi A. Loukzadeh Z. High-frequency audiometry: A means for early diagnosis of noise-induced hearing loss Noise Health 2011 13 402 406 10.4103/1463-1741.90295 22122956 43. Riga M. Korres G. Balatsouras D. Korres S. Screening protocols for the prevention of occupational noise-induced hearing loss: The role of conventional and extended high frequency audiometry may vary according to the years of employment Med. Sci. Monit. 2010 16 CR352-6 20581779 44. Hoben R. Easow G. Pevzner S. Parker M.A. Outer Hair Cell and Auditory Nerve Function in Speech Recognition in Quiet and in Background Noise Front. Neurosci. 2017 11 157 10.3389/fnins.2017.00157 28439223 45. Dallos P. Cochlear amplification, outer hair cells and prestin Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2008 18 370 376 10.1016/j.conb.2008.08.016 18809494 46. Chen G.D. Fechter L.D. The relationship between noise-induced hearing loss and hair cell loss in rats Hear. Res. 2003 177 81 90 10.1016/S0378-5955(02)00802-X 12618320 47. Abdala C. Visser-Dumont L. Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions: A Tool for Hearing Assessment and Scientific Study Volta Rev. 2001 103 281 302 23559685 48. Liberman M.C. Gao J. He D.Z. Wu X. Jia S. Zuo J. Prestin is required for electromotility of the outer hair cell and for the cochlear amplifier Nature 2002 419 300 304 10.1038/nature01059 12239568 49. Job A. Raynal M. Kossowski M. Susceptibility to tinnitus revealed at 2 kHz range by bilateral lower DPOAEs in normal hearing subjects with noise exposure Audiol. Neurotol. 2007 12 137 144 10.1159/000099025 50. Zhao F. Stephens D. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in patients with King-Kopetzky syndrome Int. J. Audiol 2006 45 34 39 10.1080/02640410500243939 16562562 51. West P.D. Evans E.F. Early detection of hearing damage in young listeners resulting from exposure to amplified music Br. J. Audiol. 1990 24 89 103 10.3109/03005369009077849 2350625 52. Hall A.J. Lutman M.E. Methods for early identification of noise-induced hearing loss Audiology 1999 38 277 280 10.3109/00206099909073035 10548376 53. 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 12689509 54. Attias J. Bresloff I. Reshef I. Horowitz G. Furman V. Evaluating noise induced hearing loss with distortion product otoacoustic emissions Br. J. Audiol. 1998 32 39 46 10.3109/03005364000000049 9643306 55. Boger M.E. Sampaio A.L.L. de Oliveira C.A.C.P. Analysis of hearing and tinnitus in workers exposed to occupational noise Int. Tinnitus J. 2016 20 88 92 10.5935/0946-5448.20160017 56. Balatsouras D.G. The evaluation of noise-induced hearing loss with distortion product otoacoustic emissions Med. Sci. Monit. 2004 10 CR218-22 15114273 57. Korres G.S. Balatsouras D.G. Tzagaroulakis A. Kandiloros D. Ferekidou E. Korres S. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in an industrial setting Noise Health 2009 11 103 19414930 58. Zhao F. Stephens D. Test-retest variability of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in human ears with normal hearing Scand. Audiol. 1999 28 171 178 10.1080/010503999424743 10489866 59. Kujawa S.G. Liberman M.C. Synaptopathy in the noise-exposed and aging cochlea: Primary neural degeneration in acquired sensorineural hearing loss Hear. Res. 2015 330 191 199 10.1016/j.heares.2015.02.009 25769437 60. Kujawa S.G. Liberman M.C. Adding insult to injury: Cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss J. Neurosci. 2009 29 14077 14085 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2845-09.2009 19906956 61. Furman A.C. Kujawa S.G. Liberman M.C. Noise-induced cochlear neuropathy is selective for fibers with low spontaneous rates J. Neurophysiol. 2013 110 577 586 10.1152/jn.00164.2013 23596328 62. Liberman L.D. Suzuki J. Liberman M.C. Dynamics of cochlear synaptopathy after acoustic overexposure J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2015 16 205 219 10.1007/s10162-015-0510-3 25676132 63. Viana L.M. O’Malley J.T. Burgess B.J. Jones D.D. Oliveira C.A. Santos F. Merchant S.N. Liberman L.D. Liberman M.C. Cochlear neuropathy in human presbycusis: Confocal analysis of hidden hearing loss in post-mortem tissue Hear. Res. 2015 327 78 88 10.1016/j.heares.2015.04.014 26002688 64. Guest H. Munro K.J. Prendergast G. Howe S. Plack C.J. Tinnitus with a normal audiogram: Relation to noise exposure but no evidence for cochlear synaptopathy Hear. Res. 2017 344 265 274 10.1016/j.heares.2016.12.002 27964937 65. Guest H. Munro K.J. Prendergast G. Millman R.E. Plack C.J. Impaired speech perception in noise with a normal audiogram: No evidence for cochlear synaptopathy and no relation to lifetime noise exposure Hear. Res. 2018 364 142 151 10.1016/j.heares.2018.03.008 29680183 66. Prendergast G. Guest H. Léger A. Munro K. Kluk K. Plack C. Evidence that hidden hearing loss does not vary systematically as a function of noise exposure in young adults with normal audiometric hearing JASA 2016 139 2122 10.1121/1.4950316 67. Dobie R.A. Humes L.E. Commentary on the regulatory implications of noise-induced cochlear neuropathy Int. J. Audiol. 2017 56 Suppl. 1 74 78 10.1080/14992027.2016.1255359 27849127 68. Feder K. Michaud D. McNamee J. Fitzpatrick E. Davies H. Leroux T. Prevalence of hazardous occupational noise exposure, hearing loss, and hearing protection usage among a representative sample of working Canadians J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2017 59 92 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000920 28045804 69. Davies H.W. Teschke K. Kennedy S.M. Hodgson M.R. Demers P.A. Occupational noise exposure and hearing protector use in Canadian lumber mills J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2008 6 32 41 10.1080/15459620802548940 70. Baguley D. McFerran D. Hall D. Tinnitus Lancet 2013 382 1600 1607 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60142-7 23827090 71. Henry J.A. Dennis K.C. Schechter M.A. General review of tinnitus: Prevalence, mechanisms, effects, and management J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2005 48 1204 1235 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/084) 16411806 72. Axelsson A. Ringdahl A. Tinnitus--A study of its prevalence and characteristics Br. J. Audiol. 1989 23 53 62 10.3109/03005368909077819 2784987 73. Masterson E.A. Themann C.L. Luckhaupt S.E. Li J. Calvert G.M. Hearing difficulty and tinnitus among US workers and non-workers in 2007 Am. J. Ind. Med. 2016 59 290 300 10.1002/ajim.22565 26818136 74. Oleksiak M. Smith B.M. St Andre J.R. Caughlan C.M. Steiner M. Audiological issues and hearing loss among Veterans with mild traumatic brain injury J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2012 49 995 1004 10.1682/JRRD.2011.01.0001 23341275 75. Cave K.M. Cornish E.M. Chandler D.W. Blast Injury of the Ear: Clinical Update from the Global War on Terror Mil. Med. 2007 172 726 730 10.7205/MILMED.172.7.726 17691685 76. Durch J.S. Joellenbeck L.M. Humes L.E. Noise and Military Service: Implications for Hearing Loss and Tinnitus National Academies Press Washington, DC, USA 2006 77. Yankaskas K. Prelude: Noise-induced tinnitus and hearing loss in the military Hear. Res. 2013 295 3 8 10.1016/j.heares.2012.04.016 22575206 78. Baguley D.M. Hyperacusis J. R. Soc. Med. 2003 96 582 585 10.1177/014107680309601203 14645606 79. Anari M. Axelsson A. Eliasson A. Magnusson L. Hypersensitivity to sound--questionnaire data, audiometry and classification Scand. Audiol. 1999 28 219 230 10.1080/010503999424653 10572967 80. Sun W. Deng A. Jayaram A. Gibson B. Noise exposure enhances auditory cortex responses related to hyperacusis behavior Brain Res. 2012 1485 108 116 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.02.008 22402030 81. Manohar S. Spoth J. Radziwon K. Auerbach B.D. Salvi R. Noise-induced hearing loss induces loudness intolerance in a rat Active Sound Avoidance Paradigm (ASAP) Hear. Res. 2017 353 197 203 10.1016/j.heares.2017.07.001 28705607 82. Radziwon K. Auerbach B.D. Ding D. Liu X. Chen G.D. Salvi R. Noise-Induced loudness recruitment and hyperacusis: Insufficient central gain in auditory cortex and amygdala Neuroscience 2019 422 212 227 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.09.010 31669363 83. Tyler R.S. Pienkowski M. Roncancio E.R. Jun H.J. Brozoski T. Dauman N. Dauman N. Andersson G. Keiner A.J. Cacace A.T. A review of hyperacusis and future directions: Part I. Definitions and manifestations Am. J. Audiol. 2014 23 402 419 10.1044/2014_AJA-14-0010 25104073 84. Di Stadio A. Dipietro L. Ricci G. Della Volpe A. Minni A. Greco A. De Vincentiis M. Ralli M. Hearing loss, tinnitus, hyperacusis, and diplacusis in professional musicians: A systematic review Int. J. Environ. Res. 2018 15 2120 10.3390/ijerph15102120 85. Kähäri K. Zachau G. Eklöf M. Sandsjö L. Möller C. Assessment of hearing and hearing disorders in rock/jazz musicians: Evaluación de la audición y de los problemas auditivos en músicos de rock y jazz Int. J. Audiol. 2003 42 279 288 10.3109/14992020309078347 12916701 86. Fredriksson S. Hussain-Alkhateeb L. Persson Waye K. The Effect of Occupational Noise on Hearing-Related Symptoms—Exploring Mediating and Modifying Effect of Annoyance and Stress Proceedings of the 12th ICBEN Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem 2017 18 22 Available online: http://www.springer.com/environment/environmental+health+-+public+health/journal/420 (accessed on 19 June 2020) 87. Kaltenbach J.A. McCaslin D.L. Increases in Spontaneous Activity in the Dorsal Cochlear Nucleus Following Exposure to High Intensity Sound: A Possible Neural Correlate of Tinnitus Audit. Neurosci. 1996 3 57 78 24244077 88. Kaltenbach J.A. Rachel J.D. Mathog T.A. Zhang J. Falzarano P.R. Lewandowski M. Cisplatin-induced hyperactivity in the dorsal cochlear nucleus and its relation to outer hair cell loss: Relevance to tinnitus J. Neurophysiol. 2002 88 699 714 10.1152/jn.2002.88.2.699 12163523 89. Zhang J.S. Kaltenbach J.A. Increases in spontaneous activity in the dorsal cochlear nucleus of the rat following exposure to high-intensity sound Neurosci. Lett. 1998 250 197 200 10.1016/S0304-3940(98)00482-0 9708866 90. Zeng F.G. An active loudness model suggesting tinnitus as increased central noise and hyperacusis as increased nonlinear gain Hear. Res. 2013 295 172 179 10.1016/j.heares.2012.05.009 22641191 91. Salvi R.J. Wang J. Ding D. Auditory plasticity and hyperactivity following cochlear damage Hear. Res. 2000 147 261 274 10.1016/S0378-5955(00)00136-2 10962190 92. Auerbach B.D. Rodrigues P.V. Salvi R.J. Central gain control in tinnitus and hyperacusis Front. Neurol. 2014 5 206 10.3389/fneur.2014.00206 25386157 93. Sheppard A. Stocking C. Ralli M. Salvi R. A review of auditory gain, low-level noise and sound therapy for tinnitus and hyperacusis Int. J. Audiol. 2020 59 5 15 10.1080/14992027.2019.1660812 31498009 94. Zhao F. Stephens D. A critical review of King-Kopetzky syndrome: Hearing difficulties, but normal hearing? Audiol. Med. 2007 5 119 124 10.1080/16513860701296421 95. Saunders G.H. Haggard M.P. The clinical assessment of obscure auditory dysfunction--1. Auditory and psychological factors Ear. Hear. 1989 10 200 208 10.1097/00003446-198906000-00011 2744258 96. Hinchcliffe R. King-Kopetzky syndrome: An auditory stress disorder J. Audiol. Med. 1992 1 89 98 97. British Society of Audiology What’s in a name? APD by any other name would not smell so sweet Int. J. Audiol. 2011 50 496 10.3109/14992027.2010.538441 21110772 98. Le Prell C.G. Brungart D.S. Speech-in-noise tests and supra-threshold auditory evoked potentials as metrics for noise damage and clinical trial outcome measures Otol. Neurotol. 2016 37 e295 e302 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001069 27518138 99. Le Prell C.G. Effects of noise exposure on auditory brainstem response and speech-in-noise tasks: A review of the literature Int. J. Audiol. 2019 58 Suppl. 1 S3 S32 10.1080/14992027.2018.1534010 30560704 100. Kumar U.A. Ameenudin S. Sangamanatha A.V. Temporal and speech processing skills in normal hearing individuals exposed to occupational noise Noise Health 2012 14 100 105 22718107 101. Yeend I. Beach E.F. Sharma M. Dillon H. The effects of noise exposure and musical training on suprathreshold auditory processing and speech perception in noise Hear. Res. 2017 353 224 236 10.1016/j.heares.2017.07.006 28780178 102. Stephens D. Zhao F. Kennedy V. Is there an association between noise exposure and King Kopetzky Syndrome? Noise Health 2003 5 55 62 14558893 103. Valderrama J.T. Beach E.F. Yeend I. Sharma M. Van Dun B. Dillon H. Effects of lifetime noise exposure on the middle-age human auditory brainstem response, tinnitus and speech-in-noise intelligibility Hear. Res. 2018 365 36 48 10.1016/j.heares.2018.06.003 29913342 104. Le Prell C.G. Siburt H.W. Lobarinas E. Griffiths S.K. Spankovich C. No reliable association between recreational noise exposure and threshold sensitivity, distortion product otoacoustic emission amplitude, or word-in-noise performance in a college student population Ear Hear. 2018 39 1057 1074 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000575 29543608 105. Fulbright A.N. Le Prell C.G. Griffiths S.K. Lobarinas E. Seminars in hearing Leisure Noise and Hearing: Effects of Recreational Noise on Threshold and Suprathreshold Measures of Auditory Function Thieme Medical Publishers New York, NY, USA 2017 298 106. Lobarinas E. Salvi R. Ding D. Selective Inner Hair Cell Dysfunction in Chinchillas Impairs Hearing-in-Noise in the Absence of Outer Hair Cell Loss J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2015 10.1007/s10162-015-0550-8 107. Salvi R. Sun W. Ding D. Chen G.D. Lobarinas E. Wang J. Radziwon K. Auerbach B.D. Inner Hair Cell Loss Disrupts Hearing and Cochlear Function Leading to Sensory Deprivation and Enhanced Central Auditory Gain Front. Neurosci. 2016 10 621 10.3389/fnins.2016.00621 28149271 108. Michalewski H.J. Starr A. Nguyen T.T. Kong Y.Y. Zeng F.G. Auditory temporal processes in normal-hearing individuals and in patients with auditory neuropathy Clin. Neurophysiol. 2005 116 669 680 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.09.027 15721081 109. Rance G. Auditory neuropathy/dys-synchrony and its perceptual consequences Trends Amplif. 2005 9 1 43 10.1177/108471380500900102 110. Vinay Moore B.C. Ten(HL)-test results and psychophysical tuning curves for subjects with auditory neuropathy Int. J. Audiol. 2007 46 39 46 10.1080/14992020601077992 17365054 111. Shaw G.M. Jardine C.A. Fridjhon P. A pilot investigation of high-frequency audiometry in obscure auditory dysfunction (OAD) patients Br. J. Audiol. 1996 30 233 237 10.3109/03005369609076770 8879688 112. Badri R. Siegel J.H. Wright B.A. Auditory filter shapes and high-frequency hearing in adults who have impaired speech in noise performance despite clinically normal audiograms JASA 2011 129 852 863 10.1121/1.3523476 113. Horwitz A.R. Dubno J.R. Ahlstrom J.B. Recognition of low-pass-filtered consonants in noise with normal and impaired high-frequency hearing JASA 2002 111 409 416 10.1121/1.1427357 114. Hunter L.L. Monson B.B. Moore D.R. Dhar S. Wright B.A. Munro K.J. Zadeh L.M. Blankenship C.M. Stiepan S.M. Siegel J.H. Extended high frequency hearing and speech perception implications in adults and children Hear. Res. 2020 107922 10.1016/j.heares.2020.107922 32111404 115. Frodl T. O’Keane V. How does the brain deal with cumulative stress? A review with focus on developmental stress, HPA axis function and hippocampal structure in humans Neurobiol. Dis. 2013 52 24 37 10.1016/j.nbd.2012.03.012 22426398 116. Munzel T. Sorensen M. Schmidt F. Schmidt E. Steven S. Kroller-Schon S. Daiber A. The Adverse Effects of Environmental Noise Exposure on Oxidative Stress and Cardiovascular Risk Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2018 28 873 908 10.1089/ars.2017.7118 29350061 117. Ising H. Braun C. Acute and chronic endocrine effects of noise: Review of the research conducted at the Institute for Water, Soil and Air Hygiene Noise Health 2000 2 7 12689468 118. Ising H. Rebentisch E. Babisch W. Curio I. Sharp D. Baumgärtner H. Medically relevant effects of noise from military low-altitude flights—results of an interdisciplinary pilot study Environ. Int. 1990 16 411 423 10.1016/0160-4120(90)90010-4 119. Ising H. Dienel D. Gunther T. Markert B. Health effects of traffic noise Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 1980 47 179 190 10.1007/BF00716376 7440003 120. Zare S. Baneshi M.R. Hemmatjo R. Ahmadi S. Omidvar M. Dehaghi B.F. The Effect of Occupational Noise Exposure on Serum Cortisol Concentration of Night-shift Industrial Workers: A Field Study Safe. Health Work 2019 10 109 113 10.1016/j.shaw.2018.07.002 121. Ising H. Babisch W. Kruppa B. Noise-induced endocrine effects and cardiovascular risk Noise Health 1999 1 37 12689488 122. Babisch W. Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects of noise Noise Health 2003 5 1 12631430 123. Lozano R. Naghavi M. Foreman K. Lim S. Shibuya K. Aboyans V. Abraham J. Adair T. Aggarwal R. Ahn S.Y. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 Lancet 2012 380 2095 2128 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61728-0 23245604 124. Tarride J.E. Lim M. DesMeules M. Luo W. Burke N. O’Reilly D. Bowen J. Goeree R. A review of the cost of cardiovascular disease Can. J. Cardiol. 2009 25 e195 e202 10.1016/S0828-282X(09)70098-4 19536390 125. Benarroch E.E. Paraventricular nucleus, stress response, and cardiovascular disease Clin. Auton. Res. 2005 15 254 263 10.1007/s10286-005-0290-7 16032381 126. Bluhm G.L. Berglind N. Nordling E. Rosenlund M. Road traffic noise and hypertension Occup. Environ. Med. 2007 64 122 126 10.1136/oem.2005.025866 17053022 127. Virkkunen H. Kauppinen T. Tenkanen L. Long-term effect of occupational noise on the risk of coronary heart disease Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2005 291 299 10.5271/sjweh.885 16161712 128. Deal J.A. Betz J. Yaffe K. Harris T. Purchase-Helzner E. Satterfield S. Pratt S. Govil N. Simonsick E.M. Lin F.R. Hearing impairment and incident dementia and cognitive decline in older adults: The health ABC study J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2016 72 703 709 10.1093/gerona/glw069 129. Amieva H. Ouvrard C. Giulioli C. Meillon C. Rullier L. Dartigues J.F. Self-Reported Hearing Loss, Hearing Aids, and Cognitive Decline in Elderly Adults: A 25-Year Study J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2015 63 2099 2104 10.1111/jgs.13649 26480972 130. Ford A.H. Hankey G.J. Yeap B.B. Golledge J. Flicker L. Almeida O.P. Hearing loss and the risk of dementia in later life Maturitas 2018 112 1 11 10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.03.004 29704910 131. Livingston G. Sommerlad A. Orgeta V. Costafreda S.G. Huntley J. Ames D. Ballard C. Banerjee S. Burns A. Cohen-Mansfield J. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care Lancet 2017 390 2673 2734 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31363-6 28735855 132. Lin F.R. Hearing loss and cognition among older adults in the United States J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2011 66 1131 1136 10.1093/gerona/glr115 21768501 133. Lin F.R. Metter E.J. O’Brien R.J. Resnick S.M. Zonderman A.B. Ferrucci L. Hearing loss and incident dementia Arch. Neurol. 2011 68 214 220 10.1001/archneurol.2010.362 21320988 134. Lin F.R. Yaffe K. Xia J. Xue Q.-L. Harris T.B. Purchase-Helzner E. Satterfield S. Ayonayon H.N. Ferrucci L. Simonsick E.M. Hearing loss and cognitive decline in older adults JAMA Intern. Med. 2013 173 293 299 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.1868 23337978 135. Loughrey D.G. Kelly M.E. Kelley G. Brennan S. Lawlor B.A. Association of AgeRelated Hearing Loss With Cognitive Function, Cognitive Impairment, and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (vol 144, pg 115, 2018) JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2018 144 176 10.1001/jamaoto.2017.2513 136. Martini A. Castiglione A. Bovo R. Vallesi A. Gabelli C. Aging, cognitive load, dementia and hearing loss Audiol. Neurootol. 2014 19 Suppl. 1 2 5 10.1159/000371593 25733358 137. Taljaard D.S. Olaithe M. Brennan-Jones C.G. Eikelboom R.H. Bucks R.S. The relationship between hearing impairment and cognitive function: A meta-analysis in adults Clin. Otolaryngol. 2016 41 718 729 10.1111/coa.12607 26670203 138. Thomson R.S. Auduong P. Miller A.T. Gurgel R.K. Hearing loss as a risk factor for dementia: A systematic review Laryngoscope Investig. Otolaryngol. 2017 2 69 79 10.1002/lio2.65 139. Kraus K.S. Mitra S. Jimenez Z. Hinduja S. Ding D. Jiang H. Gray L. Lobarinas E. Sun W. Salvi R.J. Noise trauma impairs neurogenesis in the rat hippocampus Neuroscience 2010 167 1216 1226 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.02.071 20206235 140. Manohar S. Adler H.J. Chen G.-D. Salvi R. Blast-induced hearing loss suppresses hippocampal neurogenesis and disrupts long term spatial memory Hear. Res. 2020 395 108022 10.1016/j.heares.2020.108022 32663733 141. Shukla M. Mani K.V. Shukla S. Kapoor N. Moderate Noise associated oxidative stress with concomitant memory impairment, neuro-inflammation and Neurodegeneration Brain Behav. Immun. 2020 100089 10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100089 142. Jafari Z. Kolb B.E. Mohajerani M.H. Chronic traffic noise stress accelerates brain impairment and cognitive decline in mice Exp. Neurol. 2018 308 1 12 10.1016/j.expneurol.2018.06.011 29936225 143. Hayes S.H. Manohar S. Majumdar A. Allman B.L. Salvi R. Noise-induced hearing loss alters hippocampal glucocorticoid receptor expression in rats Hear. Res. 2019 379 43 51 10.1016/j.heares.2019.04.013 31071644