Clinical test performance of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions using new stimulus conditions.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether new stimulus parameters, which have been shown to produce large distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) levels in a group of normal-hearing listeners (Neely et al. 2005; Johnson et al. 2006), result in more accurate identification of auditory status and more accurate predictions of behavioral threshold than traditional stimulus conditions.


METHODS
DPOAE input/output (I/O) functions for eight f2 frequencies ranging from 0.7 to 8 kHz were recorded from 96 ears with normal hearing and 226 ears with sensorineural hearing losses ranging from mild to profound. The primary-level differences and primary-frequency ratios were set according to the stimulus relations developed by Johnson et al. (2006). The accuracy of the dichotomous decision task (area under the relative operating characteristic curve [AROC]) for these new stimulus conditions was evaluated as a function of L2 and was compared with previous reports in the literature where traditional stimuli were used (Stover et al. 1996). Here, traditional stimuli are defined as L1 = L2 + 10 and f2/f1 = 1.22 for all L2 and f2 values. In addition to I/O functions, DPgrams with L2 = 55-dB sound pressure level (SPL) and f2 ranging from 0.7 to 8 kHz were recorded for each subject using the traditional stimuli. This provided a direct within-subject comparison of AROC for moderate-level stimuli when the new and traditional stimuli were used. Finally, the accuracy with which DPOAE thresholds predicted behavioral thresholds was evaluated in relation to previous reports in the literature for two definitions of DPOAE threshold, one where the entire I/O function was used to make the prediction and a second where the lowest L2 producing a signal to noise ratio > or =3 dB was used.


RESULTS
There was no evidence that the new stimuli improved the accuracy with which auditory status was identified from DPOAE responses. With both the new and traditional stimuli, moderate stimulus levels (L2 = 40- to 55-dB SPL) resulted in the most accurate identification of auditory status. When L2 = 55-dB SPL, the new stimuli produced AROC values that were equivalent to those observed with traditional stimuli. The new stimuli resulted in more accurate prediction of behavioral threshold for several f2 values when using the entire I/O function, although the effect was small. Furthermore, using the entire I/O function to predict behavioral threshold results in more accurate predictions of behavioral threshold than using the signal to noise ratio definition, although this approach can be applied to a smaller percentage of ears.


CONCLUSIONS
The new stimuli that had been shown previously to produce large DPOAE levels in normal-hearing listeners (Neely et al. 2005; Johnson et al. 2006) do not result in more accurate identification of auditory status and have only a small positive effect on the prediction of behavioral threshold.
Johnson
Tiffany A
TA
Speech-Language-Hearing, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA. tiffany-johnson@ku.edu
Neely
Stephen T
ST
Kopun
Judy G
JG
Dierking
Darcia M
DM
Tan
Hongyang
H
Gorga
Michael P
MP
D000161:Acoustic Stimulation / Q000379:methods*; D000328:Adult; D001301:Audiometry, Pure-Tone; D001309:Auditory Threshold / Q000502:physiology; D005260:Female; D006319:Hearing Loss, Sensorineural / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D017084:Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous / Q000502:physiology; D012016:Reference Values; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012815:Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; D012984:Software; D013018:Sound Spectrography
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Mar;117(3 Pt 1):1248-59
15807014
J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Dec;122(6):3539-53
18247762
Hear Res. 1994 Nov;80(2):146-52
7896573
Ear Hear. 1999 Aug;20(4):345-62
10466570
J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Jul;124(1):288-300
18646977
Z Med Phys. 2003;13(2):93-8
12868334
J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 Apr;107(4):2128-35
10790038
J Acoust Soc Am. 1991 Jan;89(1):280-6
2002169
Acta Otolaryngol. 1996 Jan;116(1):3-11
8820343
Ear Hear. 1999 Apr;20(2):149-63
10229516
J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Aug;88(2):840-9
2212309
J Acoust Soc Am. 1993 Apr;93(4 Pt 1):2050-60
8473617
J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Nov;104(5):2925-34
9821338
J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Jun;103(6):3418-30
9637029
Ear Hear. 2005 Dec;26(6):593-607
16377995
Ear Hear. 2000 Oct;21(5):508-28
11059707
J Speech Hear Res. 1992 Oct;35(5):1142-59
1447925
J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Jan;119(1):418-28
16454296
J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Apr;97(4):2346-58
7714254
Br J Audiol. 1994 Aug-Oct;28(4-5):273-80
7735156
J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Jun;103(6):3431-44
9637030
J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Apr;97(4):2359-77
7714255
Ear Hear. 1997 Dec;18(6):440-55
9416447
J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 Aug;100(2 Pt 1):956-67
8759949
J Acoust Soc Am. 1989 Jan;85(1):220-9
2921404
Am J Otol. 1997 Jul;18(4):454-61
9233485
J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Dec;110(6):3119-31
11785813
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1990 May;147:30-42
2110798
Hear Res. 2000 Aug;146(1-2):47-56
10913883
Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285-93
3287615
J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Apr;111(4):1810-8
12002865
J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Jun;113(6):3275-84
12822800
J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Aug;88(2):821-39
2212308