Effects of Tympanic Membrane Electrodes on Sound Transmission From the Ear Canal to the Middle and Inner Ears

Abstract

Objectives: The first objective of the study was to compare approaches to eardrum electrode insertion as they relate to the likelihood of introducing an acoustic leak between the ear canal and eartip. A common method for placing a tympanic membrane electrode involves securing the electrode in the canal by routing it underneath a foam eartip. This method is hypothesized to result in a slit leak between the canal and foam tip due to the added bulk of the electrode wire. An alternative approach involves creating a bore in the wall of the foam tip that the electrode can be threaded through. This method is hypothesized to reduce the likelihood of a slit leak before the electrode wire is integrated into the foam tip. The second objective of the study was to investigate how sound transmission in the ear is affected by placing an electrode on the eardrum. It was hypothesized that an electrode in contact with the eardrum increases the eardrum’s mass, with the potential to reduce sound transmission at high frequencies. Design: Wideband acoustic immittance and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) were measured in eight human ears. Measurements were completed for five different conditions: (1) baseline with no electrode in the canal, (2) dry electrode in the canal but not touching the eardrum, secured underneath the eartip, (3) dry electrode in the canal not touching the eardrum, secured through a bore in the eartip (subsequent conditions were completed using this method), (4) hydrated electrode in the canal but not touching the eardrum, and (5) hydrated electrode touching the eardrum. To create the bore, a technique was developed in which a needle is heated and pushed through the foam eartip. The electrode is then thread through the bore and advanced slowly by hand until contacting the eardrum. Analysis included comparing absorbance, admittance phase angle, and DPOAE levels between measurement conditions. Results: Comparison of the absorbance and admittance phase angle measurements between the electrode placement methods revealed significantly higher absorbance and lower admittance phase angle from 0.125 to 1 kHz when the electrode is routed under the eartip. Absorbance and admittance phase angle were minimally affected when the electrode was inserted through a bore in the eartip. DPOAE levels across the different conditions showed changes approximating test-retest variability. Upon contacting the eardrum, the absorbance tended to decrease below 1 kHz and increase above 1 kHz. However, changes were within the range of test-retest variability. There was evidence of reduced levels below 1 kHz and increased levels above 1 kHz upon the electrode contacting the eardrum. However, differences between conditions approximated test-retest variability. Conclusions: Routing the eardrum electrode through the foam tip reduces the likelihood of incurring an acoustic leak between the canal walls and eartip, compared with routing the electrode under the eartip. Changes in absorbance and DPOAE levels resulting from electrode contact with the eardrum implicate potential stiffening of eardrum; however, the magnitude of changes suggests minimal effect of the electrode on sound transmission in the ear.