Literature DB >> 29716248

Correlations between otoacoustic emissions and performance in common psychoacoustical tasks.

Dennis McFadden1, Edward G Pasanen1, Mindy M Maloney1, Erin M Leshikar2, Michelle H Pho2.   

Abstract

Performance was measured on seven common psychoacoustical tasks for about 75 highly trained subjects. Because some psychoacoustical outcomes varied by race, the subjects were partitioned into White and Non-White categories for analysis. Sex, race, and menstrual-cycle differences in performance are described in a companion paper [McFadden, Pasanen, Maloney, Leshikar, and Pho (2018). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 143, 2338-2354]. Also measured for all subjects were three types of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs): spontaneous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs), click-evoked otoacoustic emissions (CEOAEs), and distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs). The experimental question was whether and how OAEs were correlated with psychoacoustical performance. In accord with past findings, the SOAEs and CEOAEs exhibited substantial sex and race differences, but the DPOAEs did not. Somewhat surprisingly, the correlations between OAEs and psychoacoustical performance were generally weak. No form of OAE was highly correlated with any psychoacoustical task for both sexes within a race category. Thus, there was no compelling evidence that the mechanisms underlying OAEs also contribute systematically to performance in any of the simultaneous or temporal masking tasks studied here. Especially surprising were the weak correlations between OAEs and detection of a tone in the quiet. Apparently individual differences in psychoacoustical performance reside more in post-cochlear (neural) mechanisms than in individual differences in the cochlear ("mechanical") mechanisms underlying the OAEs measured here.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29716248      PMCID: PMC5915325          DOI: 10.1121/1.5030999

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


  52 in total

1.  Intensity discrimination, temporal integration and gap detection by normally-hearing subjects with weak and strong otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  J Smurzynski; R Probst
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct

2.  Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) in Caucasian and Chinese young adults.

Authors:  Navid Shahnaz
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 2.117

3.  Psychoacoustical and ear canal cancellation of (2f1-f2)-distortion products.

Authors:  E Zwicker; F P Harris
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 4.  Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: a taxonomy for mammalian OAEs.

Authors:  C A Shera; J J Guinan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Prevalence and characteristics of tinnitus among US adults.

Authors:  Josef Shargorodsky; Gary C Curhan; Wildon R Farwell
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.965

6.  Ear canal acoustic distortion at 2f1-f2 from human ears: relation to other emissions and perceived combination tones.

Authors:  M Furst; W M Rabinowitz; P M Zurek
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  New off-line method for detecting spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in human subjects.

Authors:  C L Talmadge; G R Long; W J Murphy; A Tubis
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Prevalence of hearing loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004.

Authors:  Yuri Agrawal; Elizabeth A Platz; John K Niparko
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2008-07-28

9.  Effect of prenatal androgens on click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in male and female sheep (Ovis aries).

Authors:  Dennis McFadden; Edward G Pasanen; Michelle D Valero; Eila K Roberts; Theresa M Lee
Journal:  Horm Behav       Date:  2008-09-12       Impact factor: 3.587

10.  Incidence of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in children and infants.

Authors:  E A Strickland; E M Burns; A Tubis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  3 in total

1.  Examining replicability of an otoacoustic measure of cochlear function during selective attention.

Authors:  Jordan A Beim; Andrew J Oxenham; Magdalena Wojtczak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Auditory evoked potentials: Differences by sex, race, and menstrual cycle and correlations with common psychoacoustical tasks.

Authors:  Dennis McFadden; Craig A Champlin; Michelle H Pho; Edward G Pasanen; Mindy M Maloney; Erin M Leshikar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  The role of the medial olivocochlear reflex in psychophysical masking and intensity resolution in humans: a review.

Authors:  Skyler G Jennings
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 2.974

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.