Literature DB >> 9821338

Comparison between intensity and pressure as measures of sound level in the ear canal.

S T Neely1, M P Gorga.   

Abstract

In-the-ear calibration of sound pressure level may be problematic at frequencies above 2 kHz, because the pressure can vary significantly along the length of the ear canal, due to reflection of sound waves at the eardrum. This issue has been investigated by measuring behavioral thresholds to tones in a group of human subjects (N = 61) for two different insertion depths of an insert earphone. The change in insertion depth was intended to alter the distribution of pressure in the ear canal, shifting the frequency at which spectral notches occur. The inset earphone or "probe" (Etymotic ER-10C) also contained a calibrated microphone, allowing the recording of sound pressure levels in the ear canal. Prior to the threshold measurements in each subject, the Thevenin acoustic source characteristics of the probe were determined by a special calibration procedure. This calibration allowed the expression of the sound level at threshold in terms of acoustic intensity (W/m2). The impact of changes in insertion depth was determined by measuring behavioral threshold at each depth. Because cochlear sensitivity remained constant, the level of sound entering the ear at threshold should have been the same (within measurement error) for both insertions. The difference in sound pressure level (SPL) at threshold between the two probe insertions was greatest at the notch frequency of the first insertion. At this notch frequency, the SPL at threshold increased by an average of 11.4 dB. The change in sound intensity level (SIL) at threshold was almost always less than the change in SPL. At the notch frequency, the SIL decreased, on average, by only 0.5 dB. These results suggest that SIL may be a better indicator than SPL of the sound level entering the ear, especially for frequencies in the 4-8 kHz range.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9821338     DOI: 10.1121/1.423876

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


  31 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.  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

4.  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

5.  Reducing reflected contributions to ear-canal distortion product otoacoustic emissions in humans.

Authors:  Tiffany A Johnson; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Influence of primary-level and primary-frequency ratios on human distortion product otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  Tiffany A Johnson; Stephen T Neely; Cassie A Garner; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Sound pressure distribution and power flow within the gerbil ear canal from 100 Hz to 80 kHz.

Authors:  Michael E Ravicz; Elizabeth S Olson; John J Rosowski
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Distortion product otoacoustic emissions: cochlear-source contributions and clinical test performance.

Authors:  Tiffany A Johnson; Stephen T Neely; Judy G Kopun; Darcia M Dierking; Hongyang Tan; Connie Converse; Elizabeth Kennedy; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.