Literature DB >> 18382378

Test-retest repeatability of distortion product otoacoustic emissions.

Wolfgang Wagner1, Guido Heppelmann, Reinhard Vonthein, Hans Peter Zenner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) have become part of routine audiological diagnostics. The large scale of clinical DPOAE applications, such as screening of hearing in infants, objective estimation of hearing status, distinction between cochlear and retrocochlear origin of sensorineural hearing loss, exclusion of psychogenic hearing loss, monitoring of hearing during administration of ototoxic drugs, and others illustrates the significance of this audiological tool. In all diagnostic tests, knowledge about the procedure's test-retest repeatability is of crucial importance, to allow for distinction between measurement deviations and true physiological or pathological changes in monitoring over time.
DESIGN: Measurements of DPOAE were performed in triplicate in 80 normally hearing ears of 40 subjects. Both immediate remeasurements with the ear probe left in place [single-fit mode (SF-mode)] and remeasurements after approximately 5 to 10 days [multiple-fit mode (MF-mode)] were included. DPOAE primary tone levels were varied in 5 dB steps from L2 = 60 to 20 dB SPL (L1 = L2 x 0.4 + 39 dB SPL) and within the frequency range f2 = 1 to 6 kHz. Repeatability of DPOAE was evaluated by the standard error of measurement (Sm), reliability (Cronbach alpha), absolute differences between measurements, 95% confidence intervals, and repeatability standard deviations.
RESULTS: Sm averaged 0.67 dB over all frequencies and primary tone levels in the SF-mode, and 1.44 dB in the MF-mode, respectively. As expected, test-retest repeatability declined with decreasing primary tone levels; however, repeatability values were still mostly satisfactory with the lower primary tone levels. For the exemplary primary tone level combination of L1/L2 = 63/60 dB SPL, which is close to common clinical paradigms, the difference between two DPOAE measurements under the reported test conditions could be considered statistically significant (p = 0.05) if it exceeded 0.7 to 1.3 dB in the range 1 to 5 kHz and 2.3 dB for 6 kHz in the SF-mode, when compared with 1.8 to 2.7 dB for 1 to 5 kHz and 3.7 dB for 6 kHz in the MF-mode. Signal to noise ratio (SNR) did not seem to have a large influence on repeatability, as long as SNR was within 6 to 35 dB, which covers the range of most clinical DPOAE measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: The DPOAE-test-retest study presented here is to our knowledge the first, which combines variation of primary tone levels, assessment of both SF- and MF-modes, and comparison of the two modalities within the same subjects. Although the measurements were conducted under practical conditions resembling the clinical setting, repeatability was generally good. The widely used minimum SNR of 6 dB seems to be a recommendable criterion when considering both practicability and measurement quality under clinical conditions. The current findings underline the suitability of DPOAE as a monitoring tool of cochlear status over time. The data are intended to assist the clinician and the scientist in the correct interpretation of DPOAE level changes in the test-retest situation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18382378     DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31816906e7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  15 in total

1.  Meta-Analysis of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission Retest Variability for Serial Monitoring of Cochlear Function in Adults.

Authors:  Kelly M Reavis; Garnett P McMillan; Marilyn F Dille; Dawn Konrad-Martin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Compensating for ear-canal acoustics when measuring otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Karolina K Charaziak; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Categorical loudness scaling and equal-loudness contours in listeners with normal hearing and hearing loss.

Authors:  Daniel M Rasetshwane; Andrea C Trevino; Jessa N Gombert; Lauren Liebig-Trehearn; Judy G Kopun; Walt Jesteadt; Stephen T Neely; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Reliability of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus).

Authors:  Michelle D Valero; Rama Ratnam
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Posture systematically alters ear-canal reflectance and DPOAE properties.

Authors:  Susan E Voss; Modupe F Adegoke; Nicholas J Horton; Kevin N Sheth; Jonathan Rosand; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Monitoring carboplatin ototoxicity with distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in children with retinoblastoma.

Authors:  Shaum P Bhagat; Johnnie K Bass; Stephanie T White; Ibrahim Qaddoumi; Matthew W Wilson; Jianrong Wu; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 1.675

7.  Reliability and clinical test performance of cochlear reflectance.

Authors:  Daniel M Rasetshwane; Sara E Fultz; Judy G Kopun; Michael P Gorga; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Reliability of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions and their relation to loudness.

Authors:  Megan J Thorson; Judy G Kopun; Stephen T Neely; Hongyang Tan; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.482

9.  Evaluation of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAEs) among workers at an Industrial Company exposed to different industrial noise levels in 2014.

Authors:  Sajad Zare; Parvin Nassiri; Mohammad Reza Monazzam; Akram Pourbakht; Kamal Azam; Taghi Golmohammadi
Journal:  Electron Physician       Date:  2015-07-20

10.  An in-situ calibration method and the effects on stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Shixiong Chen; Haoshi Zhang; Lan Wang; Guanglin Li
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 2.819

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.