Literature DB >> 19275318

An in situ calibration for hearing thresholds.

Robert H Withnell1, Patricia S Jeng, Kelly Waldvogel, Kari Morgenstein, Jont B Allen.   

Abstract

Quantifying how the sound delivered to the ear canal relates to hearing threshold has historically relied on acoustic calibration in physical assemblies with an input impedance intended to match the human ear (e.g., a Zwislocki coupler). The variation in the input impedance of the human ear makes such a method of calibration questionable. It is preferable to calibrate the acoustic signal in each ear individually. By using a calibrated sound source and microphone, the acoustic input impedance of the ear can be determined, and the sound delivered to the ear calibrated in terms of either (i) the incident sound pressure wave or (ii) that portion of the incident sound pressure wave transmitted to the middle ear and cochlea. Hearing thresholds expressed in terms of these quantities are reported, these in situ calibrations not being confounded by ear canal standing waves. Either would serve as a suitable replacement for the current practice of hearing thresholds expressed in terms of sound pressure level calibrated in a 6cc or 2cc coupler.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19275318     DOI: 10.1121/1.3075551

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


  20 in total

1.  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

2.  An analysis of the acoustic input impedance of the ear.

Authors:  Robert H Withnell; Lauren E Gowdy
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-08-06

3.  Comparison of in-situ calibration methods for quantifying input to the middle ear.

Authors:  James D Lewis; Ryan W McCreery; Stephen T Neely; Patricia G Stelmachowicz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Specification of absorbed-sound power in the ear canal: application to suppression of stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Douglas H Keefe; Kim S Schairer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Distribution of standing-wave errors in real-ear sound-level measurements.

Authors:  Susan A Richmond; Judy G Kopun; Stephen T Neely; Hongyang Tan; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Comparison of nine methods to estimate ear-canal stimulus levels.

Authors:  Natalie N Souza; Sumitrajit Dhar; Stephen T Neely; Jonathan H Siegel
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Comparing otoacoustic emissions evoked by chirp transients with constant absorbed sound power and constant incident pressure magnitude.

Authors:  Douglas H Keefe; M Patrick Feeney; Lisa L Hunter; Denis F Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Chinchilla middle-ear admittance and sound power: high-frequency estimates and effects of inner-ear modifications.

Authors:  Michael E Ravicz; John J Rosowski
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-10       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.