The use of cumulative distributions to determine critical values and levels of confidence for clinical distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements.

Distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) input/output functions were measured at nine f2 frequencies ranging from 500 to 8000 Hz in 210 normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. In a companion paper [Stover et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100, 956-967 (1996)], L1-L2 was held constant at 10 dB, and L2 was varied from 65 to 10 dB SPL in 5-dB steps. Based upon analyses using clinical decision theory, it was demonstrated that DPOAE amplitudes for 65/55 dB SPL primaries (L1/L2) and DPOAE thresholds resulted in the greatest separation between normal and impaired ears. In this paper, the data for these two conditions were recast as cumulative distributions, which not only describe the extent of overlap between normal and impaired distributions, but also provide the measured value (i.e., the specific DPOAE amplitude or threshold) for any combination of hit and false alarm rates. From these distributions, confidence limits were constructed for both DPOAE amplitude and threshold to determine the degree of certainty with which any measured response could be assigned to either the normal or impaired population. For these analyses, DPOAE measurements were divided into three categories (a) response properties that would be unlikely to come from normal ears, (b) response properties that would be unlikely to come from impaired ears, and (c) response properties for which hearing status was uncertain. Based upon DPOAE amplitude measurements, the region of uncertainty, defined between the 95 percentile for impaired ears and the 5 percentile for normal ears, was relatively narrow for f2 frequencies ranging from 707 to 4000 Hz. For DPOAE thresholds, this region was relatively narrow for F2 frequencies ranging from 1414 to 4000 Hz.

[1]  W Jesteadt,et al.  A comparison of transient-evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  F. Telischi,et al.  Clinical Applications of Otoacoustic Emissions , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[3]  B. Prieve Otoacoustic Emissions in Infants and Children: Basic Characteristics and Clinical Application , 1992 .

[4]  M. J. McCoy,et al.  Dependence of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions on primary levels in normal and impaired ears. I. Effects of decreasing L2 below L1. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  B P Kimberley,et al.  Predicting Pure Tone Thresholds in Normal and Hearing‐Impaired Ears with Distortion Product Emission and Age , 1994, Ear and hearing.

[6]  William S. Rhode,et al.  Nonlinear mechanics at the apex of the guinea-pig cochlea , 1995, Hearing Research.

[7]  S. Neely,et al.  Towards understanding the limits of distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  B L Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  The Clinical Utility of Distortion‐Product Otoacoustic Emissions , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[9]  A. M. Brown,et al.  The behavior of the acoustic distortion product, 2f1-f2, from the human ear and its relation to auditory sensitivity. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  S. Neely,et al.  Otoacoustic emissions in an adult with severe hearing loss. , 1991, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  R. M. Hurley,et al.  Effectiveness of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) in predicting hearing level. , 1994, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[12]  B L Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Evidence for two discrete sources of 2f1-f2 distortion-product otoacoustic emission in rabbit: I. Differential dependence on stimulus parameters. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  S. Neely,et al.  Preliminary descriptions of transient-evoked and distortion-product otoacoustic emissions from graduates of an intensive care nursery. , 1995, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[14]  W Jesteadt,et al.  Analysis of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  W Jesteadt,et al.  Otoacoustic emissions from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects: distortion product responses. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  J. H. Siegel,et al.  Sound calibration and distortion product otoacoustic emissions at high frequencies , 1994, Hearing Research.

[17]  D A Nelson,et al.  Distortion product emissions and sensorineural hearing loss. , 1989, The Journal of otolaryngology.

[18]  S J Norton,et al.  Evoked Ofoacoustic Emissions in Normal Hearing Infants and Children: Emerging Data and Issues , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[19]  J A Swets,et al.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. , 1988, Science.

[20]  N. Cooper,et al.  Two-tone suppression in cochlear mechanics. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.