Reliability of Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning Curve Measures

Zizz, Carol A.; Glattke, Theodore J.

doi:10.1044/jshr.3104.616

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This may be because DPOAEs are generated in multiple cochlear locations or in a broader generation region than SFOAEs (Shera and Guinan 1999;Knight and Kemp 2001;Martin et al 2010). On the other hand, there appears to be agreement between the sharpness of tuning derived from SFOAE STCs and either SOAE STCs or TEOAEs in adults (Bargones and Burns 1988;Zizz and Glattke 1988;Zettner and Folsom 2003). This supports the view that SFOAEs are more closely related to either TEOAEs or SOAEs than to DPOAEs.…”

Section: The Shape Of Sfoae Stcs and Phase Effects-implications For Ssupporting

confidence: 73%

“…On the other hand, OAEs that are believed to arise via a single mechanism, i.e., SFOAEs, transient-evoked (TE) OAEs and spontaneous (S) OAEs, appear to be a better alternative for assessing frequency selectivity because they may provide a more localized picture of cochlear processes than DPOAEs (Zweig and Shera 1995;Shera and Guinan 1999;Talmadge et al 2000). Although tuning data are sparse for these types of emissions, a few reports indicate a good match between either SOAE, TEOAE or SFOAE STCs and behavioral estimates of frequency selectivity for humans (e.g., Kemp and Chum 1980;Zurek 1981;Schloth and Zwicker 1983;Long 1984;Rabinowitz and Widin 1984;Bargones and Burns 1988;Zizz and Glattke 1988;Zwicker and Wesel 1990;Long et al 1991;Zettner and Folsom 2003;Keefe et al 2008). Further support for use of single-source OAE STCs to estimate tuning comes from animal studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning in Humans: Comparison to Behavioral Tuning

Charaziak

Souza

Siegel

2013

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As shown by the work of Kemp and Chum in 1980, stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission suppression tuning curves (SFOAE STCs) have potential to objectively estimate behaviorally measured tuning curves. To date, this potential has not been tested. This study aims to do so by comparing SFOAE STCs and behavioral measures of tuning (simultaneous masking psychophysical tuning curves, PTCs) in 10 normal-hearing listeners for frequency ranges centered around 1,000 and 4,000 Hz at low probe levels. Additionally, SFOAE STCs were collected for varying conditions (probe level and suppression criterion) to identify the optimal parameters for comparison with behavioral data and to evaluate how these conditions affect the features of SFOAE STCs. SFOAE STCs qualitatively resembled PTCs: they demonstrated band-pass characteristics and asymmetric shapes with steeper high-frequency sides than low, but unlike PTCs they were consistently tuned to frequencies just above the probe frequency. When averaged across subjects the shapes of SFOAE STCs and PTCs showed agreement for most recording conditions, suggesting that PTCs are predominantly shaped by the frequency-selective filtering and suppressive effects of the cochlea. Individual SFOAE STCs often demonstrated irregular shapes (e.g., "double-tips"), particularly for the 1,000-Hz probe, which were not observed for the same subject's PTC. These results show the limited utility of SFOAE STCs to assess tuning in an individual.The irregularly shaped SFOAE STCs may be attributed to contributions from SFOAE sources distributed over a region of the basilar membrane extending beyond the probe characteristic place, as suggested by a repeatable pattern of SFOAE residual phase shifts observed in individual data.

show abstract

Section: The Shape Of Sfoae Stcs and Phase Effects-implications For Ssupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning in Humans: Comparison to Behavioral Tuning

Charaziak

Souza

Siegel

2013

JARO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The high-frequency boundary of the tuning curves may be characterized by additional minima, as illustrated in Figure 1 for the STC at 3565 Hz. However, this characteristic is not always present and, in contrast to the proposal by Zwicker, 8,21,22,[24][25][26] is not related in a simple fashion to the amplitude of the SOAE. In some cases, 26 the additional minima appear to co-exist with the presence of multiple SOAEs that include energy at one or more frequencies above the high-frequency boundary of the STC.…”

Section: Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…However, this characteristic is not always present and, in contrast to the proposal by Zwicker, 8,21,22,[24][25][26] is not related in a simple fashion to the amplitude of the SOAE. In some cases, 26 the additional minima appear to co-exist with the presence of multiple SOAEs that include energy at one or more frequencies above the high-frequency boundary of the STC. Q10 values, which indicate the sharpness of the STC contour, were reported by Zizz and Glattke 26 for five STCs to range from 4.6 to 6.2.…”

Section: Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 66%

The Use of Suppression to Determine the Characteristics of Otoacoustic Emissions

Harris¹,

Glattke²

1992

Semin Hear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although SOAEs are suppressed by pure tones of surrounding frequencies ͑Bargones and Burns, 1988;Long et al, 1991;Zizz and Glattke, 1988͒, a SOAE will synchronize to pure tones that are very close in frequency. When the SOAE is synchronized, it tends to increase the level of the pure tone as measured in the ear canal.…”

Section: Similar To Reports From Other Researchers ͑Lonsbury-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Basic characteristics of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in infants and children

Prieve

Fitzgerald

Schulte

et al. 1997

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distortion-product otoacoustic emissions at the 2 f1-f2 frequency (DPOAEs) are being advocated as a clinical tool for diagnosis of peripheral auditory pathology. Because they can be measured quickly and noninvasively, they may be an excellent method for identifying hearing loss in infants and children. However, few studies have examined the characteristics of DPOAEs in infants and children or detailed if, and how, their responses differ from those of adults. The purpose of the current study was to determine basic characteristics of DPOAEs in infants, toddlers, children, and young adults and to define any differences among age groups. An additional goal was to ensure that the presence of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions (SOAEs) did not confound any developmental effect. DPOAE input/output (I/O) functions at seven f2 frequencies and SOAEs were measured from one ear of 196 subjects. Children aged less than 1 yr had significantly higher mean DPOAE levels than older children and adults, and children aged 1-3 yr had higher mean DPOAE levels than teens and adults. These differences were dependent on frequency but were independent of f2 level and SOAE status. At every f2 frequency, groups of individuals having SOAEs had higher mean DPOAE levels than those not having SOAEs.

show abstract

Reliability of Spontaneous Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning Curve Measures

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning in Humans: Comparison to Behavioral Tuning

Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emission Suppression Tuning in Humans: Comparison to Behavioral Tuning

The Use of Suppression to Determine the Characteristics of Otoacoustic Emissions

Basic characteristics of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in infants and children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About