ORIGINAL ARTICLE
SHORT-TERM REPEATABILITY OF CONTRALATERAL SUPPRESSION OF TRANSIENTLY EVOKED OTOACOUSTIC EMISSIONS: PRELIMINARY RESULTS
W. Wiktor Jedrzejczak 1, 2  
,   Edyta Pilka 1, 2,   Lukasz Olszewski 1, 2,   Henryk Skarzynski 1, 2
 
More details
Hide details
1
Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Warsaw, Poland
2
World Hearing Center, Nadarzyn, Kajetany, Poland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
W. Wiktor Jedrzejczak   

W. Wiktor Jedrzejczak, World Hearing Center, Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, Mochnackiego 10 Str., 02-042 Warsaw, Poland, e-mail: w.jedrzejczak@ifps.org.pl
Publication date: 2020-04-14
 
J Hear Sci 2016;6(2):51–57
 
KEYWORDS
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).

Material 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.

 
REFERENCES (28)
1.
Kemp DT. Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am, 1978; 64(5): 1386–91.
 
2.
Taranda J, Maison SF, Ballestero JA, Katz E, Savino J, Vetter DE et al. A point mutation in the hair cell nicotinic cholinergic receptor prolongs cochlear inhibition and enhances noise protection. PLoS Biol, 2009; 7(1): e18.
 
3.
Kawase T, Delgutte B, Liberman MC. Antimasking effects of the olivocochlear reflex. II. Enhancement of auditory-nerve response to masked tones. J Neurophysiol, 1993; 70(6): 2533–49.
 
4.
de Boer J, Thornton AR. Effect of subject task on contralateral suppression of click evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res, 2007; 233(1–2): 117–23.
 
5.
Tavartkiladze GA, Frolenkov GI, Artamasov SV. Ipsilateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emission: role of the medial olivocochlear system. Acta Otolaryngol, 1996; 116(2): 213–18.
 
6.
Collet L, Kemp DT, Veuillet E, Duclaux R, Moulin A, Morgon A. Effect of contralateral auditory stimuli on active cochlear micro-mechanical properties in human subjects. Hear Res, 1990; 43(2–3): 251–61.
 
7.
Stuart A, Preast JL. Contralateral suppression of transientevoked otoacoustic emissions in children with sickle cell disease. Ear Hear, 2012; 33(3): 421–29.
 
8.
Mishra SK, Lutman ME. Repeatability of click-evoked otoacoustic emission-based medial olivocochlear efferent assay. Ear Hear, 2013; 34(6): 789–98.
 
9.
Namyslowski G, Morawski K, Kossowska I, Lisowska G, Koehler B, Jarosz-Chobot P. Contralateral suppression of TEOAE in diabetic children. Effects of 1.0 kHz and 2.0 kHz pure tone stimulation: preliminary study. Scand Audiol Suppl, 2001; (52): 126–29.
 
10.
Ugur AK, Kemaloglu YK, Ugur MB, Gunduz B, Saridogan C, Yesilkaya E et al. Otoacoustic emissions and effects of contralateral white noise stimulation on transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in diabetic children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2009; 73(4): 555–49.
 
11.
Kaf WA, Danesh AA. Distortion-product otoacoustic emissions and contralateral suppression findings in children with Asperger’s Syndrome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2013; 77(6): 947–54.
 
12.
Sliwinska-Kowalska M, Kotylo P. Occupational exposure to noise decreases otoacoustic emission efferent suppression. Int J Audiol, 2002; 41(2): 113–19.
 
13.
Knudson IM, Shera CA, Melcher JR. Increased contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions indicates a hyperresponsive medial olivocochlear system in humans with tinnitus and hyperacusis. J Neurophysiol, 2014; 112(12): 3197–208.
 
14.
Geven LI, Wit HP, de Kleine E, van Dijk P. Wavelet analysis demonstrates no abnormality in contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions in tinnitus patients. Hear Res, 2012; 286(1–2): 30–40.
 
15.
de Boer J, Thornton AR. Neural correlates of perceptual learning in the auditory brainstem: efferent activity predicts and reflects improvement at a speech-in-noise discrimination task. J Neurosci, 2008 ; 28(19): 4929–37.
 
16.
Stuart A, Cobb KM. Reliability of measures of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions with contralateral suppression. J Commun Disord, 2015; 58: 35–42.
 
17.
Mertes IB, Goodman SS. Within- and across-subject variability of repeated measurements of medial olivocochlear-induced changes in transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear, 2016; 37(2): e72–84.
 
18.
Marshall L, Lapsley Miller JA, Guinan JJ, Shera CA, Reed CM et al. Otoacoustic-emission-based medial-olivocochlear reflex assays for humans. J Acoust Soc Am, 2014; 136(5): 2697–713.
 
19.
Marshall L, Heller LM. Reliability of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear, 1996; 17(3): 237–54.
 
20.
Jedrzejczak WW, Blinowska KJ, Konopka W. Resonant modes in transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions and asymmetries between left and right ear. J Acoust Soc Am, 2006; 119(4): 2226–31.
 
21.
Beattie RC, Kenworthy OT, Luna CA. Immediate and shortterm reliability of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions. Int J Audiol, 2003; 42(6): 348–54.
 
22.
Kemp DT, Ryan S, Bray P. A guide to the effective use of otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear, 1990; 11(2): 93–105.
 
23.
Lisowska G, Namyslowski G, Orecka B, Misiolek M. Influence of aging on medial olivocochlear system function. Clin Interv Aging, 2014; 9: 901–14.
 
24.
Jedrzejczak WW, Koziel M, Kochanek K, Skarzynski H. Otoacoustic emissions in smoking and nonsmoking young adults. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol, 2015; 8(4): 303–11.
 
25.
Harris FP, Probst R, Wenger R. Repeatability of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions in normally hearing humans. Audiology, 1991; 30(3): 135–41.
 
26.
Keppler H, Dhooge I, Maes L, D’haenens W, Bockstael A, Philips B et al: Transient-evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions: A short-term test–retest reliability study. Int J Audiol, 2010; 49(2): 99–109.
 
27.
Lapsley Miller JA, Marshall L, Heller LM. A longitudinal study of changes in evoked otoacoustic emissions and pure-tone thresholds as measured in a hearing conservation program. Int J Audiol, 2004; 43(6): 307–22.
 
28.
Guinan JJ Jr, Backus BC, Lilaonitkul W, Aharonson V. Medial olivocochlear efferent reflex in humans: otoacoustic emission (OAE) measurement issues and the advantages of stimulus frequency OAEs. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2003; 4(4): 521–40.
 
eISSN:2084-3127
ISSN:2083-389X