Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
CASE STUDY
HIGH-FREQUENCY DISTORTION PRODUCT OTOACOUSTIC
EMISSIONS MEASURED BY TWO SYSTEMS:
AN EXAMPLE OF A SUBJECT WITH NORMAL HEARING
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
Publication date: 2016-12-31
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
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
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.
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.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
