Repeatability of High-Frequency Distortion-Product Otoacoustic Emissions in Normal-Hearing Adults

Dreisbach, Laura E.; Long, Kelly Melissa; Lees, Shannon Elizabeth

doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000233892.37803.1a

Cited by 46 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The median DCEOAE in the present study was 1 dB from 1 to 4 kHz, <3 dB from 0.5 to 8 kHz, <4 dB from 0.5 to 12.7 kHz, and 7 dB at 16 kHz. Except for the increased DCEOAE at 16 kHz, the distribution of DCEOAE between 2 and 12.7 kHz overlapped but tended to be slightly lower in level overall compared to the distribution of DDPOAE at similar frequencies in Dreisbach et al (2006). Factors affecting these repeatability estimates include possible differences in subject populations, the type of evoked OAE, and the measurement protocols with variables such as averaging time, stimulus level, and calibration method.…”

Section: A Ceoae Test Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…An additional inclusion criterion was that the SNR level of the CEOAE test and retest responses had to be at least 6 dB, which paralleled an analysis of test repeatability of high-frequency distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) responses (Dreisbach et al, 2006). This was done to avoid measuring variability when no emission was present.…”

Section: Repeatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7) are compared to the DDPOAE repeatability data (the magnitude difference in DPOAE level between test and retest) measured over frequencies from 2 to 15 kHz in normal-hearing adults (Dreisbach et al, 2006). The DPOAE measurements were performed with a stimulus frequency ratio of f 2 = f 1 ¼ 1.2, and with the level of the f 1 stimulus ranging from 60 to 70 dB SPL and the f 2 stimulus ranging from 45 to 60 dB SPL.…”

Section: A Ceoae Test Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Detecting high-frequency hearing loss with click-evoked otoacoustic emissions

Keefe

Goodman

Ellison

et al. 2011

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contrast to clinical click-evoked otoacoustic emission (CEOAE) tests that are inaccurate above 4-5 kHz, a research procedure measured CEOAEs up to 16 kHz in 446 ears and predicted the presence/absence of a sensorineural hearing loss. The behavioral threshold test that served as a reference to evaluate CEOAE test accuracy used a yes-no task in a maximum-likelihood adaptive procedure. This test was highly efficient between 0.5 and 12.7 kHz: Thresholds measured in 2 min per frequency had a median standard deviation (SD) of 1.2-1.5 dB across subjects. CEOAE test performance was assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The mean AUC from 1 to 10 kHz was 0.90 (SD ¼ 0.016). AUC decreased to 0.86 at 12.7 kHz and to 0.7 at 0.5 and 16 kHz, possibly due in part to insufficient stimulus levels. Between 1 and 12.7 kHz, the medians of the magnitude difference in CEOAEs and in behavioral thresholds were <4 dB. The improved CEOAE test performance above 4-5 kHz was due to retaining the portion of the CEOAE response with latencies as short as 0.3 ms. Results have potential clinical significance in predicting hearing status from at least 1 to 10 kHz using a single CEOAE response.

show abstract

Section: A Ceoae Test Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Repeatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Ceoae Test Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detecting high-frequency hearing loss with click-evoked otoacoustic emissions

Keefe

Goodman

Ellison

et al. 2011

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Any DPOAE study accompanied by data from which DPOAE SEM could be determined, regardless of the sample size or retest interval, was included. Other studies have characterized test-retest variability of DPOAEs by estimating the standard deviation of the amplitude difference (Roede et al 1993) and the cumulative distribution of the amplitude difference (Dreisbach et al 2006). To better reflect the clinical application of using DPOAEs for serial monitoring, only studies and data where the DPOAE probe was removed and placed again for subsequent testing were included.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-Analysis of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission Retest Variability for Serial Monitoring of Cochlear Function in Adults

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective-Distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) have long been heralded as a means to objectively monitor cochlear function and increasingly are becoming a key component in hearing surveillance programs for individuals at risk for ototoxic-and occupational noise-related hearing loss. Yet clinicians are unsure how to define clinically meaningful shifts in DPOAE level. In this study, a meta-analysis approach is used to synthesize the DPOAE level test-retest literature to construct a set of DPOAE level shift reference limits that can be used clinically to define a statistically significant emission change.Design-The authors reviewed all published articles identified through a Medline search using the terms "Otoacoustic Emission Variability," "Otoacoustic Emission Reliability," "Otoacoustic Emission Repeatability," and "Otoacoustic Emission Test Retest" restricted to DPOAEs, adults, and English language. Articles with DPOAE level data elicited by moderate stimulus levels for f 2 frequencies of 1000, 2000, 4000, or 6000 Hz were selected because these stimulus parameters were relatively well represented in the literature. The authors only included articles that reported the standard error of the measurement (SEM) or from which the SEM could be calculated. Metaanalysis was used to estimate the population mean SEM over the included studies. Models were fit separately for each f 2 primary and included days since baseline and study-specific random effects.Results-Ten DPOAE test-retest studies met inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis. The SEM values varied widely across published studies (0.57 to 3.9 dB) and were provided for relatively short time intervals (less than 15 days on average). Time, or days since baseline, was statistically significant at higher f 2 frequencies (4000 and 6000 Hz). From the model results, 90% reference limits specific to the f 2 and elapsed time between baseline and follow-up measurements were established. Reference limits provided correspond to negative (emission decrement) and positive (emission enhancement) shifts indicative of the amount of measurement variability that, using this U.S. Department of Veterans AffairsPublic Access Author manuscript Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 November 04. VA Author ManuscriptVA Author Manuscript VA Author Manuscript approach, must be tolerated as "normal" fluctuations over time. Changes larger than the reference limits are considered significant and warrant follow-up testing.Conclusions-The meta-analysis presented provides reference limits that are appropriate for a set of specific f 2 frequencies and time intervals. The meta-analysis concerns the SEM statistic directly, so that any preferred reference limit can be computed from the results and should be predicated upon the screening application. The presumed advantage of this meta-analytic approach is increased precision relative to limits suggested by any of the individual studies included in the analysis.

show abstract

“…Aspekti istraživanja OAE su različiti: anatomija uha (Geisler, 1998), raspodela akustičkog polja u ušnom kanalu , Siegel, 1994, međuzavisnost OAE i oštećenja sluha (Kemp, 1986;Kemp, 1997), korelacija OAE sa drugim merenjima (Rhodes et al, 1999), primena OAE u kliničkim uslovima (Marco et al, 1995;Perez, 1997), OAE testiranje beba, dece, odraslih, životinja, vodozemaca i gmizavaca (Probst et al, 1990), uticaj lekova na OAE (Stavroulaki et al, 2001;Dreisbach et al, 2006), praćenje stanja sluha u uslovima izloženosti velikoj buci (Mansfield et al, 1999), razumevanje mikromehanike unutrašnjeg uha (Neumann et al, 1997, Shera et al, 2002, biometrijska registracija i verifikacija obzirom da je OAE jedinstvena za svaku osobu (Swabey et al, 2009). …”

Section: Uvodunclassified

The influence of acoustic and biological noise on signal quality measurements of otoacoustic emissions

Subotić¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repeatability of High-Frequency Distortion-Product Otoacoustic Emissions in Normal-Hearing Adults

Cited by 46 publications

References 55 publications

Detecting high-frequency hearing loss with click-evoked otoacoustic emissions

Detecting high-frequency hearing loss with click-evoked otoacoustic emissions

Meta-Analysis of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission Retest Variability for Serial Monitoring of Cochlear Function in Adults

The influence of acoustic and biological noise on signal quality measurements of otoacoustic emissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About