Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions recorded using maximum length sequences from patients with sensorineural hearing loss

Much research has shown that transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) can successfully separate normally hearing and hearing impaired populations. However, this finding comes from TEOAEs recorded using conventional averaging at low stimulation rates. Presenting clicks according to maximum len...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Hearing research 2005-05, Vol.203 (1), p.122-133
Main Authors: Hine, Jemma E., Thornton, A. Roger D.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acoustic Stimulation - methods
Adult
Aged
Auditory Threshold
Biological and medical sciences
Case-Control Studies
Ear, auditive nerve, cochleovestibular tract, facial nerve: diseases, semeiology
Evoked otoacoustic emissions
Female
Hearing loss
Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - diagnosis
Hearing Loss, Sensorineural - physiopathology
Humans
Male
Maximum length sequences
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Non tumoral diseases
Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous
Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology
Time Factors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Much research has shown that transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) can successfully separate normally hearing and hearing impaired populations. However, this finding comes from TEOAEs recorded using conventional averaging at low stimulation rates. Presenting clicks according to maximum length sequences (MLSs) enables TEOAEs to be recorded at very high stimulation rates. This study compares conventional and MLS TEOAEs in normally hearing and hearing impaired adults. Stimulus presentation rates of 40 clicks/s (conventional) and 5000 clicks/s (MLS) were used. The ‘linear’ TEOAEs (i.e., the directly recorded waveforms), the ‘level nonlinear’ (LNL) TEOAEs (i.e., those derived from two linear waveforms separated by a known difference in stimulus level) and the ‘rate nonlinear’ (RNL) TEOAEs (i.e., obtained by subtracting the emission recorded at 5000 clicks/s from that at 40 clicks/s at a fixed stimulus level) were examined to compare how they separated the normally hearing and hearing impaired subjects. When compared to the results for both conventional and MLS linear or LNL TEOAEs, the present study found that the RNL results best reflected the patients’ hearing loss, although the conventional linear and LNL responses performed nearly as well. Only two impaired ears (2%), both with a best threshold of 30 dB HL at 1000 Hz, produced RNL responses with amplitude within the range produced by 95% of the normal group.
ISSN:0378-5955
1878-5891
DOI:10.1016/j.heares.2004.11.019