CASE STUDY
HIGH-FREQUENCY DISTORTION PRODUCT OTOACOUSTIC EMISSIONS MEASURED BY TWO SYSTEMS: AN EXAMPLE OF A SUBJECT WITH NORMAL HEARING
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Experimental Audiology, World Hearing Center, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw/Kajetany, Poland
2
World Hearing Center, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw/Kajetany, Poland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Edyta Pilka   

Edyta Pilka, World Hearing Center of the Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Mokra 17 Str., Kajetany, 05-830 Nadarzyn, e-mail: e.pilka@ifps.org.pl
Publication date: 2020-04-14
 
J Hear Sci 2016;6(4):57–61
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) are most commonly measured up to 6 kHz. However, there are now systems available that can measure DPOAEs up to 16 kHz. The purpose of this study was to compare two such systems.

Case report:
One subject with hearing thresholds below 20 dB HL at frequencies from 0.125 to 16 kHz was used to compare DPOAEs measured by the two systems. The HearID+DP (Mimosa Acoustics) and SmartDPOAE (Intelligent Hearing Systems) were used. DPOAEs were measured at frequencies from 0.5 to 16 kHz. Short-time repeatability was assessed by comparing DPOAE amplitudes between two measurements, with the second measurement made after refitting the probe. DPOAEs were above the noise for all tested frequencies. Comparison of results from the two systems showed that the differences between consecutive measurements and between the two systems was lowest in the 1–8 kHz range and highest in the 9–16 kHz range. However, even in the 1–8 kHz range, differences between response levels averaged 4 dB.

Conclusions:
Both systems provided DPOAE levels that were consistent with normal hearing thresholds. However, the differences between the two systems were quite high and may be too large to detect small changes in cochlear status if different equipment is used.

 
REFERENCES (9)
1.
Lonsbury-Martin BL, Whitehead ML, Martin GK. Clinical applications of otoacoustic emissions. J Speech Hear Res, 1991; 34(5): 964–81.
 
2.
Pilka E, Jedrzejczak WW, Trzaskowski B, Skarzynski H. Variability of distortion product otoacoustic emissions at 10, 12, and 16 kHz: A preliminary study. J Hear Sci, 2014; 4(4): 59–64.
 
3.
Cacace AT, McClelland WA, Weiner J, McFarland DJ. Individual differences and the reliability of 2F1–F2 distortion-product otoacoustic emissions: Effects of time-of-day, stimulus variables, and gender. J Speech Hear Res, 1996; 39(6): 1138–48.
 
4.
Dreisbach LE, Long KM, Lees SE. Repeatability of high-frequency distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in normal hearing adults. Ear Hear, 2006; 27(5): 466–79.
 
5.
Gorga MP, Neely ST, Bergman BM, Beauchaine KL, Kaminski JR, Peters J et al. A comparison of transient-evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 1993; 94(5): 2639–48.
 
6.
Hall JW. Handbook of otoacoustic emissions. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing, 2000.
 
7.
Dunckley KT, Dreisbach LE. Gender effects on high frequency distortion product otoacoustic emissions in humans. Ear Hear, 2004; 25(6): 554–64.
 
8.
Zebian M, Hensel J, Fedtke T, Vollbort S. Interpretation of distortion product otoacoustic emissions at higher frequencies. J Hear Sci, 2011; 1(3): 49–51.
 
9.
Shaffer LA, Withnell RH, Dhar S, Lilly DJ, Goodman SS, Harmon KM. Sources and mechanisms of DPOAE generation: Implications for the prediction of auditory sensitivity. Ear Hear, 2003; 24(5): 367–79.
 
eISSN:2084-3127
ISSN:2083-389X