Literature DB >> 19701088

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

Tiffany A Johnson1, Stephen T Neely, Judy G Kopun, Darcia M Dierking, Hongyang Tan, Michael P Gorga.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether new stimulus parameters, which have been shown to produce large distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) levels in a group of normal-hearing listeners (Neely et al. 2005; Johnson et al. 2006), result in more accurate identification of auditory status and more accurate predictions of behavioral threshold than traditional stimulus conditions.
DESIGN: DPOAE input/output (I/O) functions for eight f2 frequencies ranging from 0.7 to 8 kHz were recorded from 96 ears with normal hearing and 226 ears with sensorineural hearing losses ranging from mild to profound. The primary-level differences and primary-frequency ratios were set according to the stimulus relations developed by Johnson et al. (2006). The accuracy of the dichotomous decision task (area under the relative operating characteristic curve [AROC]) for these new stimulus conditions was evaluated as a function of L2 and was compared with previous reports in the literature where traditional stimuli were used (Stover et al. 1996). Here, traditional stimuli are defined as L1 = L2 + 10 and f2/f1 = 1.22 for all L2 and f2 values. In addition to I/O functions, DPgrams with L2 = 55-dB sound pressure level (SPL) and f2 ranging from 0.7 to 8 kHz were recorded for each subject using the traditional stimuli. This provided a direct within-subject comparison of AROC for moderate-level stimuli when the new and traditional stimuli were used. Finally, the accuracy with which DPOAE thresholds predicted behavioral thresholds was evaluated in relation to previous reports in the literature for two definitions of DPOAE threshold, one where the entire I/O function was used to make the prediction and a second where the lowest L2 producing a signal to noise ratio > or =3 dB was used.
RESULTS: There was no evidence that the new stimuli improved the accuracy with which auditory status was identified from DPOAE responses. With both the new and traditional stimuli, moderate stimulus levels (L2 = 40- to 55-dB SPL) resulted in the most accurate identification of auditory status. When L2 = 55-dB SPL, the new stimuli produced AROC values that were equivalent to those observed with traditional stimuli. The new stimuli resulted in more accurate prediction of behavioral threshold for several f2 values when using the entire I/O function, although the effect was small. Furthermore, using the entire I/O function to predict behavioral threshold results in more accurate predictions of behavioral threshold than using the signal to noise ratio definition, although this approach can be applied to a smaller percentage of ears.
CONCLUSIONS: The new stimuli that had been shown previously to produce large DPOAE levels in normal-hearing listeners (Neely et al. 2005; Johnson et al. 2006) do not result in more accurate identification of auditory status and have only a small positive effect on the prediction of behavioral threshold.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19701088      PMCID: PMC3049317          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181b71924

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


  33 in total

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

Authors:  M P Gorga; K Nelson; T Davis; P A Dorn; S T Neely
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Weighted DPOAE input/output-functions: a tool for automatic assessment of hearing loss in clinical application.

Authors:  Johann A Oswald; Thomas Janssen
Journal:  Z Med Phys       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.820

3.  Distortion product emissions in humans. III. Influence of sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  G K Martin; L A Ohlms; D J Franklin; F P Harris; B L Lonsbury-Martin
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1990-05

4.  Acoustic distortion products in humans: systematic changes in amplitudes as a function of f2/f1 ratio.

Authors:  F P Harris; B L Lonsbury-Martin; B B Stagner; A C Coats; G K Martin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 5.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems.

Authors:  J A Swets
Journal:  Science       Date:  1988-06-03       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Pure-tone threshold estimation from extrapolated distortion product otoacoustic emission I/O-functions in normal and cochlear hearing loss ears.

Authors:  Paul Boege; Thomas Janssen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: evaluation of transient evoked otoacoustic emission, distortion product otoacoustic emission, and auditory brain stem response test performance.

Authors:  S J Norton; M P Gorga; J E Widen; R C Folsom; Y Sininger; B Cone-Wesson; B R Vohr; K Mascher; K Fletcher
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.570

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

Authors:  P A Dorn; D Konrad-Martin; S T Neely; D H Keefe; E Cyr; M P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Further efforts to predict pure-tone thresholds from distortion product otoacoustic emission input/output functions.

Authors:  Michael P Gorga; Stephen T Neely; Patricia A Dorn; Brenda M Hoover
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-06       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
  8 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Using Thresholds in Noise to Identify Hidden Hearing Loss in Humans.

Authors:  Courtney L Ridley; Judy G Kopun; Stephen T Neely; Michael P Gorga; Daniel M Rasetshwane
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Effect of calibration method on distortion-product otoacoustic emission measurements at and around 4 kHz.

Authors:  Michal L Reuven; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Daniel M Rasetshwane; Jont B Allen; Hongyang Tan; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

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.  Input-output functions of the nonlinear-distortion component of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in normal and hearing-impaired human ears.

Authors:  Dennis Zelle; Lisa Lorenz; John P Thiericke; Anthony W Gummer; Ernst Dalhoff
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.840

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.