Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Feb;131(2):1282-95.
doi: 10.1121/1.3672654.

Reliability of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions and their relation to loudness

Megan J Thorson  1 , Judy G Kopun, Stephen T Neely, Hongyang Tan, Michael P Gorga
Affiliations

Reliability of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions and their relation to loudness

Megan J Thorson et al. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Feb.

Abstract

The reliability of distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) measurements and their relation to loudness measurements was examined in 16 normal-hearing subjects and 58 subjects with hearing loss. The level of the distortion product (L(d)) was compared across two sessions and resulted in correlations that exceeded 0.90. The reliability of DPOAEs was less when parameters from nonlinear fits to the input/output (I/O) functions were compared across visits. Next, the relationship between DPOAE I/O parameters and the slope of the low-level portion of the categorical loudness scaling (CLS) function (soft slope) was assessed. Correlations of 0.65, 0.74, and 0.81 at 1, 2, and 4 kHz were observed between CLS soft slope and combined DPOAE parameters. Behavioral threshold had correlations of 0.82, 0.83, and 0.88 at 1, 2, and 4 kHz with CLS soft slope. Combining DPOAEs and behavioral threshold provided little additional information. Lastly, a multivariate approach utilizing the entire DPOAE I/O function was used to predict the CLS rating for each input level (dB SPL). Standard error of the estimate when using this method ranged from 2.4 to 3.0 categorical units (CU), suggesting that DPOAE I/O functions can predict CLS measures within the CU step size used in this study (5).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example of an I/O function fit by the two-slope, nonlinear model described by Neely et al. (2009). The two-slope fit (solid line) is superimposed on the DPOAE measurements for an f2 = 1 kHz. S1 represents the low-level slope and S2 represents the additional compression that reduces the slope at high levels. The breakpoint between S1 and S2 is represented by two parameters: Li and Lo. Li represents the level of f2 (L2) that corresponds to the breakpoint between S1 and S2 and was estimated at 40.6 dB SPL (represented by the vertical dashed line). Lo represents the Ld at which the breakpoint occurred and was estimated at 4.5 dB SPL (represented by the horizontal dashed line).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Ld level in session 2 as a function of the Ld from session 1. Each data point represents an Ld recorded at one L2. Data are provided for each frequency and correlations are provided as insets in each panel. Data from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects are combined in each panel.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Repeatability of the parameters obtained from nonlinear fits to DPOAE I/O functions. In the top row of panels (A), S1 from session 2 is plotted as a function of S1 obtained in session 1. In the bottom row of panels (B), S2 from session 2 is plotted as a function of S2 from session 1. In both A and B, each data point represents a pair of parameter values from one subject. Data are provided for each frequency and correlations are provided as insets in each panel. Data from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects are combined in each panel.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Row A (top) plots Li in session 2 as a function of Li obtained in session 1. In the bottom panel (B), Lo in session 2 is plotted as a function of Lo from session 1. In both A and B, each data point represents a pair of parameter values from one subject. Data are provided for each frequency and correlations are provided as insets in each panel. Data from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects are combined in each panel.
Figure 5
Figure 5
CLS soft slope as a function of five predictor variables. The left column describes the relation between soft slope and audiometric threshold, based on data taken from Al-Salim et al. (2010). Correlations between CLS soft slope and the four parameters describing DPOAE I/O functions are provided in the remaining four columns. Each data point represents data from one subject. Data are provided for each frequency and correlations are provided as insets in each panel. Data from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects are combined within each panel.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Residual soft slope, displayed on the Y-axis, as a function of five predictor variables. CLS residual slope was determined by subtracting the predicted CLS soft slope (based on correlations with audiometric threshold) from the actual CLS soft slope. The first column describes the relation between audiometric threshold and residual soft slope. Correlations of zero were observed, as expected, because this manipulation was intended to remove any dependence on audiometric threshold. Relations of residual soft slope with the four parameters describing the DPOAE I/O functions are provided in the remaining four columns. Each data point represents data from one subject. Data are provided for each frequency and correlations are provided as insets in each panel. Data from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects are combined within each panel.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Predicted categorical units (CU) based on DPOAE measurements using multivariate analyses (open circles) from 12 individual subjects plotted against actual CUs (closed circles) obtained in the same subjects. The first two columns provide examples for 6 normal-hearing subjects whereas the last two columns provide examples for 6 hearing-impaired subjects. Behavioral thresholds and the standard error of the estimate for individual subjects are provided as insets in each panel.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Allen, J. B., Hall, J. L., and Jeng, P. S. (1990). “Loudness growth in 1/2-octave bands (LGOB)—A procedure for the assessment of loudness,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 745–753.10.1121/1.399778 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Al-Salim, S. C., Kopun, J. G., Neely, S. T., Jesteadt, W., Stiegemann, B., and Gorga, M. P. (2010). “Reliability of categorical loudness scaling and its relation to threshold,” Ear Hear. 31, 567–578.10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181da4d15 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. ANSI (2004). S3.6-2004, Specifications for Audiometers (AIP, New York: ).
    1. Beattie, R. C., Kenworthy, O. T., and Luna, C. A. (2003). “Immediate and short-term reliability of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions,” Int. J. Audiol. 42, 348–354.10.3109/14992020309101328 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beattie, R. C., Kenworthy, O. T., and Neal-Johnson, C. M. (2004). “Distortion product otoacoustic emissions: Input-output functions for primary-tone pairs at 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz in normal-hearing females,” Aust. N. Z. J. Audiol. 26, 116–132.10.1375/audi.26.2.116.58273 - DOI

Publication types