Click‐ and tone‐burst‐evoked otoacoustic emissions in normal‐hearing and hearing‐impaired ears

1996 ◽  
Vol 99 (5) ◽  
pp. 3077-3086 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth A. Prieve ◽  
Michael P. Gorga ◽  
Stephen T. Neely
Keyword(s):  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Tone Burst ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired

scholarly journals Predicting hearing loss from otoacoustic emissions using an artificial neural network

2002 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rouviere De Waal ◽  
René Hugo ◽  
Maggi Soer ◽  
Johann J. Krüger
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Artificial Neural Network ◽  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Back Propagation ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Distortion Product ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Artificial Neural ◽  
Artificial Neural Network Ann

Normal and impaired pure tone thresholds (PTTs) were predicted from distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DP using a feed-forward artificial neural network (ANN) with a back-propagation training algorithm. The ANN used a present and absent DPOAEs from eight DP grams, (2fl -f2 = 406 - 4031 Hz) to predict PTTs at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz. With normal hearing as < 25 dB HL, prediction accuracy of normal hearing was 94% at 500, 88% at 1000, 88% at 2000 and 93% at 4000 Hz. Prediction of hearing-impaired categories was less accurate, due to insufficient data for the ANN to train on. This research indicates the possibility of accurately predicting hearing ability within 10 dB in normal hearing individuals and in hearing-impaired listeners with DPOAEs and ANNsfrom 500 - 4000 Hz.

Detection of Hearing Loss Using 2f2-f1 and 2f1-f2 Distortion-Product Otoacoustic Emissions

2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 1165-1186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy S. Fitzgerald ◽  
Beth A. Prieve
Keyword(s):  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Signal To Noise ◽  
Primary Level ◽  
Distortion Product ◽  
Hearing Status ◽  
Stimulus Parameters

Although many distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) may be measured in the ear canal in response to 2 pure tone stimuli, the majority of clinical studies have focused exclusively on the DPOAE at the frequency 2f1-f2. This study investigated another DPOAE, 2f2-f1, in an attempt to determine the following: (a) the optimal stimulus parameters for its clinical measurement and (b) its utility in differentiating between normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears at low-to-mid frequencies (≤2000 Hz) when measured either alone or in conjunction with the 2f1-f2 DPOAE. Two experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, the effects of primary level, level separation, and frequency separation (f2/f1) on 2f2-f1 DPOAE level were evaluated in normal-hearing ears for low-to-mid f2 frequencies (700–2000 Hz). Moderately high-level primaries (60–70 dB SPL) presented at equal levels or with f2 slightly higher than f1 produced the highest 2f2-f1 DPOAE levels. When the f2/f1 ratio that produced the highest 2f2-f1 DPOAE levels was examined across participants, the mean optimal f2/f1 ratio across f2 frequencies and primary level separations was 1.08. In Experiment 2, the accuracy with which DPOAE level or signal-to-noise ratio identified hearing status at the f2 frequency as normal or impaired was evaluated using clinical decision analysis. The 2f2-f1 and 2f1-f2 DPOAEs were measured from both normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears using 2 sets of stimulus parameters: (a) the traditional parameters for measuring the 2f1-f2 DPOAE (f2/f1 = 1.22; L1, L2 = 65, 55 dB SPL) and (b) the new parameters that were deemed optimal for the 2f2-f1 DPOAE in Experiment 1 (f2/f1 = 1.073, L1 and L2 = 65 dB SPL). Identification of hearing status using 2f2-f1 DPOAE level and signal-to-noise ratio was more accurate when the new stimulus parameters were used compared with the results achieved when the 2f2-f1 DPOAE was recorded using the traditional parameters. However, identification of hearing status was less accurate for the 2f2-f1 DPOAE measured using the new parameters than for the 2f1-f2 DPOAE measured using the traditional parameters. No statistically significant improvements in test performance were achieved when the information from the 2 DPOAEs was combined, either by summing the DPOAE levels or by using logistic regression analysis.

Otoacoustic emissions from normal‐hearing and hearing‐impaired subjects: Distortion product responses

1993 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 2050-2060 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Gorga ◽  
Stephen T. Neely ◽  
Brenda Bergman ◽  
Kathryn L. Beauchaine ◽  
Jan R. Kaminski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Distortion Product

scholarly journals Tone-burst auditory brainstem response wave V latencies in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears

2015 ◽  
Vol 138 (5) ◽  
pp. 3210-3219 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Lewis ◽  
Judy Kopun ◽  
Stephen T. Neely ◽  
Kendra K. Schmid ◽  
Michael P. Gorga
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Brainstem Response ◽  
Tone Burst ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Brainstem Response

A comparison of transient‐evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions in normal‐hearing and hearing‐impaired subjects

1993 ◽  
Vol 94 (5) ◽  
pp. 2639-2648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Gorga ◽  
Stephen T. Neely ◽  
Brenda M. Bergman ◽  
Kathryn L. Beauchaine ◽  
Jan R. Kaminski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Distortion Product

Analysis of transient‐evoked otoacoustic emissions in normal‐hearing and hearing‐impaired ears

1993 ◽  
Vol 93 (6) ◽  
pp. 3308-3319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth A. Prieve ◽  
Michael P. Gorga ◽  
Alicia Schmidt ◽  
Stephen Neely ◽  
Jo Peters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Transient Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document