Tone-Burst and Click-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions in Subjects With Hearing Loss Above 0.25, 0.5, and 1 kHz

Jędrzejczak, Wiesław Wiktor; Kochanek, Krzysztof; Trzaskowski, Bartosz; Piłka, Edyta; Skarżyński, Piotr H.; Skarżyńśki, Henryk

doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31825c05ac

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have demonstrated a relationship between audiometric status and OAEs. This relationship has been observed for DPOAEs (e.g., Gorga et al 1993; Stover et al 1996; Boege and Janssen 2002; Johnson et al 2010; Kirby et al 2011) CEOAEs; (e.g., Gorga et al 1993; Prieve et al 1993; Hussain et al 1998; Goodman et al 2009; Mertes and Goodman, 2013), SFOAEs (e.g., Ellison and Keefe 2005), and TBOAEs (e.g., McPherson et al 2006; Jedrzejczak et al 2012). As a consequence of the relationship between auditory status and OAEs, and because of their non-invasive nature, OAEs are used clinically, including in newborn hearing screening.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 52%

Reliability and Clinical Test Performance of Cochlear Reflectance

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Cochlear reflectance (CR) is the cochlear contribution to ear-canal reflectance. CR is equivalent to an otoacoustic emission (OAE) deconvolved by forward pressure in the ear-canal. Similar to other OAE measures, CR level is related to cochlear status. When measured using wideband noise stimuli, potential advantages of CR over other types of otoacoustic emissions include (1) the capability to cover a wider frequency range more efficiently by requiring fewer measurements, (2) minimal influence on the recorded emission from the measurement system and middle ear, (3) lack of entrainment of spontaneous OAEs, and (4) easier interpretation due to the existence of an equivalent linear model, which validates the application of linear systems theory. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the reliability, assess the accuracy in a clinical screening paradigm, and determine the relation of CR to audiometric thresholds. Thus, this study represents an initial assessment of the clinical utility of CR. Design Data were collected from 32 normal-hearing (NH) and 58 hearing-impaired (HI) participants. A wideband noise stimulus presented at seven stimulus levels (10 to 70 dB SPL, 10-dB steps) was used to elicit the CR. Reliability of CR was assessed using Cronbach’s α, standard error of measurement, and absolute differences between CR data from three separate test sessions. Test performance was evaluated using clinical decision theory. The ability of CR to predict audiometric thresholds was evaluated using regression analysis. Results CR repeatability across test sessions was similar to that of other clinical measurements. However, both the accuracy with which CR distinguished NH from HI ears and the accuracy with which CR predicted audiometric thresholds were less than reported in previous studies using distortion-product OAE measurements. Conclusion CR measurements are repeatable between test sessions, can be used to predict auditory status and are related to audiometric thresholds. However, under current conditions, CR does not perform as well as other OAE measurements. Further developments in CR measurement and analysis methods may improve performance. CR has theoretical advantages for cochlear modeling, which may lead to improved interpretation of cochlear status.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 52%

Reliability and Clinical Test Performance of Cochlear Reflectance

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…OAEs require the proper functioning of outer hair cells [ 9 ]. Because OAEs are very sensitive to cochlear abnormalities [ 10 ], their measurement is an excellent tool for monitoring cochlear status, such as after application of ototoxic drugs [ 11 ] or exposure to noise [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Otoacoustic Emissions in Smoking and Nonsmoking Young Adults

Jędrzejczak

Kozieł

Kochanek

et al. 2015

Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe present study investigates the usefulness of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) and distortion product OAEs (DPOAEs) in detecting small changes in the hearing of young smoking adults.MethodsOtoacoustic emissions were acquired from the ears of 48 young adults (age, 20 to 27 years). The dataset was divided into two groups, smoking (24 persons/48 ears) and nonsmoking (24 persons/48 ears). The level of smoking was relatively small in comparison to previous studies, an average of 3.8 years and 8.7 cigarettes per day. In each ear three OAE measurements were made: TEOAEs, DPOAEs, and spontaneous OAEs (SOAEs). Pure tone audiometry and tympanometry were also conducted. Audiometric thresholds did not differ significantly between the datasets. Half-octave-band values of OAE signal to noise ratios and response levels were used to assess statistical differences.ResultsAveraged data initially revealed that differences between the two study groups occurred only for TEOAEs at 1 kHz. However when the datasets were divided into ears with and without SOAEs more differences became apparent, both for TEOAEs and DPOAEs. In ears that exhibited SOAEs, both smokers and nonsmokers, there were no statistically significant differences between evoked OAEs; however in all ears without SOAEs, evoked OAEs were higher in the ears of nonsmokers, by as much as 5 dB. These differences were most prominent in the 1-2 kHz range.ConclusionA general decrease in OAE levels was found in the group of smokers. However, in ears which exhibited SOAEs, there was no difference between the evoked OAEs of smokers and nonsmokers. We conclude that smoking had not yet measurably affected the ears of those with acute hearing (i.e., those who exhibit SOAEs). However, in ears without SOAEs, smokers exhibited smaller evoked OAE amplitudes than nonsmokers, even though their audiometric thresholds were within the norm.

show abstract

“…In the same way as for WWR, usually the ears with larger response levels also had higher SNRs, although there were some appreciable differences between ears. The most common criterion for the presence of TEOAEs used in screening is SNR >3 or 6 dB [ 26 , 27 ], and these criteria are shown in Figure 4 . At a frequency of 1 kHz, both criteria were satisfied in all measurements for all ears.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeatability of Transient-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions in Young Adults

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability and variability of TEOAE characteristics in hearing screening tests performed under practical conditions on normal subjects.Material/MethodsA group of 11 young, normal-hearing subjects aged 19–24 years was tested. They were examined otologically and audiologically prior to the tests and no ear pathologies were found. Responses were acquired with a commercially available instrument (Integrity, Vivosonic Inc.) using a standardized OAE protocol. The TEOAE tests were repeated 3 times in each subject at random intervals within 24 h. The analyzed parameters of interest were: (i) whole wave reproducibility (WWR) and; (ii) signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).ResultsWWR and SNR did not differ significantly among the 3 measurement sessions. In most cases the differences in WWR among measurements were around 1–2% and for SNRs they were 1–4 dB SNRs and were highest in the 1–2 kHz range. TEOAE-based tests can be useful tools for hearing screening.ConclusionsThe tests can give reliable results provided that adequate procedures are used and low-noise conditions are ensured. The tests are best complemented with other examinations to widen the range of ear pathologies able to be detected.

show abstract

Tone-Burst and Click-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions in Subjects With Hearing Loss Above 0.25, 0.5, and 1 kHz

Cited by 19 publications

References 18 publications

Reliability and Clinical Test Performance of Cochlear Reflectance

Reliability and Clinical Test Performance of Cochlear Reflectance

Otoacoustic Emissions in Smoking and Nonsmoking Young Adults

Repeatability of Transient-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions in Young Adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About