Determination of acute noise effects using distortion product otoacoustic emissions.

Because distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAE) are the product of the effect of two sinus tones on the cochlea, a multitude of combinations regarding the amplitude and the frequency ratio of the primary tones exists. The goal of the present study was to directly compare different stimulus combinations described in the literature in the detection of acute noise trauma using DPOAE. In the present study, 13 volunteers were exposed for 1 h to noise that was equivalent to sound levels in a discotheque. Audiograms and distortion product otoacoustic emissions were measured before and after noise exposure using four different stimulus combinations. For three of these settings, L1 was 65 dB, L1-L2 was 25 dB and f2/f1 was varied and set to 1.22, 1.20 and 1.18. For the fourth setting, L1 was at 65 dB, whereas L1-L2 was at 10 dB (f2/f1 = 1.20). A second group of volunteers (n = 14) was measured using identical time periods and setting, but was not exposed to noise. The comparison of different stimulus combinations showed that the stimulus combination L1 = 65 dB and L1-L2 = 25 dB at f2/f1 = 1.18 was best suited for detecting a difference between noise-exposed and unexposed individuals.

[1]  Thomas Gold,et al.  Hearing. II. The Physical Basis of the Action of the Cochlea , 1948, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B - Biological Sciences.

[2]  M. J. McCoy,et al.  Dependence of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions on primary levels in normal and impaired ears. II. Asymmetry in L1,L2 space. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  C. Metz.  Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[4]  Clinical significance of probe-tone frequency ratio on distortion product otoacoustic emissions. , 1993, Scandinavian audiology.

[5]  S. Norton,et al.  The effects of continuous versus interrupted noise exposures on distortion product otoacoustic emissions in guinea pigs , 1996, Hearing Research.

[6]  M P Gorga,et al.  Toward optimizing the clinical utility of distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  A. M. Brown,et al.  Measurement of acoustic distortion reveals underlying similarities between human and rodent mechanical responses. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  D. Kemp,et al.  The effect of noise exposure on the details of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in humans. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  J. Hanley.  Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. , 1989, Critical reviews in diagnostic imaging.

[10]  W. W. Clark,et al.  The behavior of acoustic distortion products in the ear canals of chinchillas with normal or damaged ears. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  J. Mott,et al.  Behavior of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions following intense ipsilateral acoustic stimulation , 1989, Hearing Research.

[12]  Effects of altering organ of Corti on cochlear distortion products f2 - f1 and 2f1 - f2. , 1982, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  J. Liebel,et al.  Die Erfassung von Lärmschäden bei Besuchern einer Diskothek mit Hilfe der TEOAE und DPOAE* , 1996 .

[14]  Auditory threshold evaluation by distortion-product oto-acoustic emissions using decision support system. , 1994, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[15]  R. Bobbin,et al.  Chronic low-level noise exposure alters distortion product otoacoustic emissions , 1996, Hearing Research.

[16]  P Dallos,et al.  Properties of auditory nerve responses in absence of outer hair cells. , 1978, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  Hallowell Davis,et al.  An active process in cochlear mechanics , 1983, Hearing Research.

[18]  Frequency selectivity in noise-damaged cochleas. , 1993, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[19]  R. Hauser,et al.  The influence of systematic primary-tone level variation L2-L1 on the acoustic distortion product emission 2f1-f2 in normal human ears. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  G. K. Yates,et al.  Basilar membrane measurements and the travelling wave , 1986, Hearing Research.

[21]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[22]  D. O. Kim,et al.  Distortion product otoacoustic emission test of sensorineural hearing loss: performance regarding sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristics. , 1996, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[23]  Glen K. Martin,et al.  Sensitivity of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in humans to tonal over-exposure: Time course of recovery and effects of lowering L2 , 1994, Hearing Research.

[24]  R Probst,et al.  Monitoring the effects of noise exposure using transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions. , 1993, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[25]  Temporary threshold shift and otoacoustic emissions after industrial noise exposure. , 1995, Scandinavian audiology.

[26]  B L Lonsbury-Martin,et al.  Acoustic distortion products in humans: systematic changes in amplitudes as a function of f2/f1 ratio. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  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.

[28]  S. Schneeweiss,et al.  Evaluation of TEOAE and DPOAE measurements for the assessment of auditory thresholds in sensorineural hearing loss. , 1996, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[29]  R. A. Schmiedt.  Acoustic distortion in the ear canal. I. Cubic difference tones: effects of acute noise injury. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.