Literature DB >> 18646977

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

Rachel A Scheperle1, Stephen T Neely, Judy G Kopun, Michael P Gorga.   

Abstract

Standing waves can cause errors during in-the-ear calibration of sound pressure level (SPL), affecting both stimulus magnitude and distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) level. Sound intensity level (SIL) and forward pressure level (FPL) are two measurements theoretically unaffected by standing waves. SPL, SIL, and FPL in situ calibrations were compared by determining sensitivity of DPOAE level to probe-insertion depth (deep and "shallow") for a range of stimulus frequencies (1-8 kHz) and levels (20-60 dB). Probe-insertion depth was manipulated with the intent to shift the frequencies with standing-wave minima at the emission probe, introducing variability during SPL calibration. The absolute difference in DPOAE level between insertions was evaluated after correcting for an incidental change caused by the effect of ear-canal impedance on the emission traveling from the cochlea. A three-way analysis of variance found significant main effects for stimulus level, stimulus frequency, and calibration method, as well as significant interactions involving calibration method. All calibration methods exhibited changes in DPOAE level due to the insertion depth, especially above 4 kHz. However, SPL demonstrated the greatest changes across all stimulus levels for frequencies above 2 kHz, suggesting that SIL and FPL provide more consistent measurements of DPOAEs for frequencies susceptible to standing-wave calibration errors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18646977      PMCID: PMC2562746          DOI: 10.1121/1.2931953

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


  30 in total

1.  Methods for estimating the sound pressure at the eardrum.

Authors:  H Hudde; A Engel; A Lodwig
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Distortion product emissions in humans. I. Basic properties in normally hearing subjects.

Authors:  B L Lonsbury-Martin; F P Harris; B B Stagner; M D Hawkins; G K Martin
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1990-05

3.  Distortion product otoacoustic emission test of sensorineural hearing loss: performance regarding sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristics.

Authors:  D O Kim; J Paparello; M D Jung; J Smurzynski; X Sun
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 1.494

4.  Cross-talk in otoacoustic emission probes.

Authors:  J H Siegel
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Effects of ear-canal standing waves on measurements of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  M L Whitehead; B B Stagner; B L Lonsbury-Martin; G K Martin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Sound calibration and distortion product otoacoustic emissions at high frequencies.

Authors:  J H Siegel; E T Hirohata
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Growth of distortion product otoacoustic emissions with primary-tone level in humans.

Authors:  G R Popelka; P A Osterhammel; L H Nielsen; A N Rasmussen
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Towards understanding the limits of distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements.

Authors:  M P Gorga; S T Neely; B M Bergman; K L Beauchaine; J R Kaminski; Z Liu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Otoacoustic emissions from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects: distortion product responses.

Authors:  M P Gorga; S T Neely; B Bergman; K L Beauchaine; J R Kaminski; J Peters; W Jesteadt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Distortion-product emissions and auditory sensitivity in human ears with normal hearing and cochlear hearing loss.

Authors:  D A Nelson; B P Kimberley
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1992-10
View more
  63 in total

1.  Influence of calibration method on distortion-product otoacoustic emission measurements: II. threshold prediction.

Authors:  Abigail R Rogers; Sienna R Burke; Judy G Kopun; Hongyang Tan; Stephen T Neely; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Influence of calibration method on distortion-product otoacoustic emission measurements: I. test performance.

Authors:  Sienna R Burke; Abigail R Rogers; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Hongyang Tan; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Further assessment of forward pressure level for in situ calibration.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Shawn S Goodman; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Inverse solution of ear-canal area function from reflectance.

Authors:  Daniel M Rasetshwane; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Reliability of categorical loudness scaling and its relation to threshold.

Authors:  Sarah C Al-Salim; Judy G Kopun; Stephen T Neely; Walt Jesteadt; Bettina Stiegemann; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Non-invasive estimation of middle-ear input impedance and efficiency.

Authors:  James D Lewis; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Cochlear Reflectance and Otoacoustic Emission Predictions of Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Stephen T Neely; Sara E Fultz; Judy G Kopun; Natalie M Lenzen; Daniel M Rasetshwane
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Relation of distortion-product otoacoustic emission input-output functions to loudness.

Authors:  Daniel M Rasetshwane; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Use of forward pressure level to minimize the influence of acoustic standing waves during probe-microphone hearing-aid verification.

Authors:  Ryan W McCreery; Andrea Pittman; James Lewis; Stephen T Neely; Patricia G Stelmachowicz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Characterizing the ear canal acoustic impedance and reflectance by pole-zero fitting.

Authors:  Sarah R Robinson; Cac T Nguyen; Jont B Allen
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.