SHORT-TERM REPEATABILITY OF CONTRALATERAL SUPPRESSION OF TRANSIENTLY EVOKED OTOACOUSTIC EMISSIONS PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Journal Title: Journal of Hearing Science - Year 2016, Vol 6, Issue 2
Abstract
Background: The effect of suppression of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) by contralateral acoustic stimulation (CAS) is very small, on the level of 1–2 dB. At the same time, OAEs are known to have quite high variability across subjects and some fluctuation of the signal between measurements is also present. The purpose of the present study was to investigate short-term repeatability of contralateral suppression of transiently evoked OAEs (TEOAEs). Materials and methods: OAEs were recorded in a group of 10 adults with normal hearing. TEOAEs were recorded using the linear protocol (all stimuli at the same level and polarity); stimulus levels were kept at 65 dB peSPL; and a 60 dB SPL broadband noise was delivered to the contralateral ear as suppressor. Each recording session consisted of three measurements: the first two were made consecutively without taking out the probe (‘single fit’ mode); the third measurement was made after taking out and refitting the probe (‘multiple fit’ mode). Global and half-octave values of TEOAE response levels and suppression were investigated. Additionally, as a measure of reliability, standard errors of measurement (SEMs) were analyzed. Results: Broadband suppression was on average around 0.9 dB, while in the three half-octave frequency bands between 1 and 2 kHz it was 1.2–0.9 dB, 0.6 dB for the 2.8 kHz band, and 0.4 dB for the 4 kHz band. The SEM of suppression for single fit mode was about 0.15 dB for broadband analysis and 0.3 dB for 1 kHz, 0.2 dB for 1.4–2 kHz, 0.3 dB for 2.8 kHz, and 0.4 dB for 4 kHz. For multiple fits, there were only minor differences in SEM between broadband and 1–2.8 kHz, while for 4 kHz the SEM was greater, reaching 0.5 dB. Conclusions: For a given paradigm, the reliability of suppression of TEOAEs is quite satisfactory for global values and for the 1–2 kHz bands. In this range, the SEM is smaller than the suppression effect. On the other hand, for higher frequencies, the variability is higher, about the same as the measured suppression.
Authors and Affiliations
W. Wiktor Jedrzejczak, Edyta Pilka, Lukasz Olszewski, Henryk Skarzynski
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP370328
- DOI 10.17430/899578
- Views 38
- Downloads 0
MUSICAL TRAINING INFLUENCES AUDITORY TEMPORAL PROCESSING
Background: A link between musical expertise and auditory temporal processing abilities was examined. Material and methods: Trained musicians (n=13) and non-musicians (n=12) were tested on speech tasks (phonetic identifi...
COEXISTENCE OF BILATERAL SULCUS VERGETURE AND BILATERAL FIBROUS MASS OF THE VOCAL FOLDS: CASE REPORT
Background: This study presents the case of a 32-year old woman who presented with severe dysphonia. She had experienced voice problems since childhood Materials and methods: The patient underwent otolaryngological and p...
A REVIEW OF NEONATAL HEARING SCREENING PRACTICES IN INDIA
Newborn hearing screening (NHS) programs were implemented in India as a part of research studies beginning in the early 1970s. Later, several hospitals established their own hearing screening programs. In 2006, the Gover...
CHARACTERIZING MUSCLE ARTIFACT INTERFERENCE IN AEP RECORDING
Background: It is well known that muscle artifacts negatively affect auditory evoked potential (AEP) recordings. However, the precise relation between the set of muscles involved and the specific AEP affected is not clea...
TINNITUS – ALL YOU SHOULD KNOW. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL TINNITUS WEEK
International Tinnitus Week, with participation of the Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, was celebrated from 6 to 12 February 2017. Part of a special event in Warsaw was an information campaign aimed at d...