Literature DB >> 2340969

A guide to the effective use of otoacoustic emissions.

D T Kemp1, S Ryan, P Bray.   

Abstract

Otoacoustic emission test instruments are now entering routine audiological practice. Two general classes of technique are in use in laboratory work--those employing spectrum analysers to observe the continuous generation of OAEs, both stimulated or unstimulated, and those using transient stimulation and waveform averaging to extract a delayed OAE or "cochlear echo" waveform from ear canal sound. Both methods have particular advantages in clinical applications. The transient OAE type of method has proved very effective in screening applications, particularly in neonates. It is possible to perform noninvasive screening acoustic cochleography in about a minute. The technique is also useful for characterizing cochlear mechanical status prior to long term monitoring. Achieving routinely reliable OAE test performance in clinical and screening applications under nonideal conditions makes special demands on the instrumental design and the response evaluation procedures. The essential requirements are reviewed and discussed in a general and specific context. We have tried to meet these requirements in a transient evoked otoacoustic emission system (the ILO88) which we designed to operate with a personal computer. We report on our design of probe, and our use of evaluation procedures for probe fit, and response quality. Signal processing methods have been developed to reject noncochlear acoustic responses, and to optimise the rejection of patient noise. Examples of its clinical use, and the practical problems typically encountered are given here.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2340969     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199004000-00004

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


  71 in total

1.  Modification of the wavelet method used in transiently evoked otoacoustic emission pass/fail criterion to increase its accuracy.

Authors:  L P Yang; S T Young; T S Ku
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 2.  The 12, 24, or is it 26 cranial nerves?

Authors:  P D Welsby
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  Fast reverse propagation of sound in the living cochlea.

Authors:  Wenxuan He; Anders Fridberger; Edward Porsov; Tianying Ren
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2010-06-02       Impact factor: 4.033

4.  Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in term infants after hypoxia-ischaemia.

Authors:  Ze Dong Jiang; Zheng Zhang; Andrew Robert Wilkinson
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2004-11-13       Impact factor: 3.183

5.  Is there a close relationship between changes in amplitudes of distortion product otoacoustic emissions and hair cell damage after exposure to realistic industrial noise in guinea pigs?

Authors:  V Linss; E Emmerich; F Richter; W Linss
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2004-12-09       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Neonatal otoacoustic emission screening and the identification of deafness.

Authors:  P M Watkin
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 5.747

7.  Comparison of compound action potential audiograms with distortion product otoacoustic emissions in experimentally induced hydrops.

Authors:  K C Horner
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Medial olivocochlear-induced transient-evoked otoacoustic emission amplitude shifts in individual subjects.

Authors:  Shawn S Goodman; Ian B Mertes; James D Lewis; Diana K Weissbeck
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-08-28

9.  Differentiating Middle Ear and Medial Olivocochlear Effects on Transient-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions.

Authors:  Kendra L Marks; Jonathan H Siegel
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-04-21

Review 10.  Neurophysiologic measures of auditory function in fish consumers: associations with long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and methylmercury.

Authors:  Adam C Dziorny; Mark S Orlando; J J Strain; Philip W Davidson; Gary J Myers
Journal:  Neurotoxicology       Date:  2012-10-12       Impact factor: 4.294

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.