Literature DB >> 10790038

Distortion product otoacoustic emission test performance when both 2f1-f2 and 2f2-f1 are used to predict auditory status.

M P Gorga1, K Nelson, T Davis, P A Dorn, S T Neely.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine whether distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) test performance, defined as its ability to distinguish normal-hearing ears from those with hearing loss, can be improved by examining response and noise amplitudes at 2 f1-f2 and 2f2-f1 simultaneously. In addition, there was interest in knowing whether measurements at both DPs and for several primary frequency pairs can be used in a multivariate analysis to further optimize test performance. DPOAE and noise amplitudes were measured at 2f1-f2 and 2 f2-f1 for 12 primary levels (L2 from 10 to 65 dB SPL in 5-dB steps) and 9 pairs of primary frequencies (0.5 to 8 kHz in 1/2-octave steps). All data were collected in a sound-treated room from 70 subjects with normal hearing and 80 subjects with hearing loss. Subjects had normal middle-ear function at the time of the DPOAE test, based on standard tympanometric measurements. Measurement-based stopping rules were used such that the test terminated when the noise floor around the 2 f1-f2 DP was < or = -30 dB SPL or after 32 s of artifact-free averaging, whichever occurred first. Data were analyzed using clinical decision theory in which relative operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed and areas under the ROC curves were estimated. In addition, test performance was assessed by selecting the criterion value that resulted in a sensitivity of 90% and determining the specificity at that criterion value. Data were analyzed using traditional univariate comparisons, in which predictions about auditory status were based only on data obtained when f2 = audiometric frequency. In addition, multivariate analysis techniques were used to determine whether test performance can be optimized by using many variables to predict auditory status. As expected, DPOAEs were larger for 2f1-f2 compared to 2 f2-f1 in subjects with normal hearing. However, noise amplitudes were smaller for 2f2-f1, but this effect was restricted to the lowest f2 frequencies. A comparison of signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) within normal-hearing ears showed that the 2f1-f2 DP was more frequently characterized by larger SNRs compared to 2f2-f1. However, there were several subjects in whom 2f2-f1 produced a larger SNR. ROC curve areas and specificities for a fixed sensitivity increased only slightly when data from both DPs were used to predict auditory status. Multivariate analyses, in which the inputs included both DPs for several primary frequency pairs surrounding each audiometric frequency, produced the highest areas and specificities. Thus, DPOAE test performance was improved slightly by examining data at two DP frequencies simultaneously. This improvement was achieved at no additional cost in terms of test time. When measurements at both DPs were combined with data obtained for several primary frequency pairs and then analyzed in a multivariate context, the best test performance was achieved. Excellent test performance (ROC) curve areas >0.95% and specificities >92% at all frequencies, including 500 Hz, were achieved for these conditions. Although the results described should be validated on an independent set of data, they suggest that the accuracy with which DPOAE measurements identify auditory status can be improved with multivariate analyses and measurements at multiple DPs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10790038     DOI: 10.1121/1.428494

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  12 in total

1.  Distortion product otoacoustic emissions: cochlear-source contributions and clinical test performance.

Authors:  Tiffany A Johnson; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Darcia M Dierking; Hongyang Tan; Connie Converse; Elizabeth Kennedy; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Do "optimal" conditions improve distortion product otoacoustic emission test performance?

Authors:  Benjamin J Kirby; Judy G Kopun; Hongyang Tan; Stephen T Neely; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Longitudinal Development of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions in Infants With Normal Hearing.

Authors:  Lisa L Hunter; Chelsea M Blankenship; Douglas H Keefe; M Patrick Feeney; David K Brown; Annie McCune; Denis F Fitzpatrick; Li Lin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Optimizing Clinical Interpretation of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions in Infants.

Authors:  Chelsea M Blankenship; Lisa L Hunter; Douglas H Keefe; M Patrick Feeney; David K Brown; Annie McCune; Denis F Fitzpatrick; Li Lin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Auditory function and hearing loss in children and adults with Williams syndrome: cochlear impairment in individuals with otherwise normal hearing.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Marler; Jessica L Sitcovsky; Carolyn B Mervis; Doris J Kistler; Frederic L Wightman
Journal:  Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 3.908

6.  Audiometric predictions using stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions and middle ear measurements.

Authors:  John C Ellison; Douglas H Keefe
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Clinical test performance of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions using new stimulus conditions.

Authors:  Tiffany A Johnson; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Darcia M Dierking; Hongyang Tan; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Distortion-product otoacoustic emission input/output characteristics in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired human ears.

Authors:  Stephen T Neely; Tiffany A Johnson; Judy Kopun; Darcia M Dierking; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions: A Tool for Hearing Assessment and Scientific Study.

Authors:  Caroline Abdala; Leslie Visser-Dumont
Journal:  Volta Rev       Date:  2001

10.  Influence of in situ, sound-level calibration on distortion-product otoacoustic emission variability.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.