Influence of calibration method on distortion-product otoacoustic emission measurements: I. test performance.
OBJECTIVE
Calibration errors in distortion-product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) measurements because of standing waves cause unpredictable changes in stimulus and DPOAE response level. The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which these errors affect DPOAE test performance. Standard calibration procedures use sound pressure level (SPL) to determine specified levels. Forward pressure level (FPL) is an alternate calibration method that is less susceptible to standing waves. However, FPL derivation requires prior cavity measurements, which have associated variability. In an attempt to address this variability, four FPL methods were compared with SPL: a reference calibration derived from 25 measurements before all data collection and a daily calibration measurement, both of which were made at body and room temperature.


METHODS
Data were collected from 52 normal-hearing and 103 hearing-impaired subjects. DPOAEs were measured for f2 frequencies ranging from 2 to 8 kHz in half-octave steps, with L2 ranging from -20 to 70 dB SPL (5-dB steps). At each f2, DPOAEs were measured in five calibration conditions: SPL, daily FPL at body temperature (daily body), daily FPL at room temperature (daily room), reference FPL at body temperature (ref body), and reference FPL at room temperature (ref room). Data were used to construct receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for each f2, calibration method, and L2. From these curves, areas under the ROC curve (AROC) were estimated.


RESULTS
The results of this study are summarized by the following observations: (1) DPOAE test performance was sensitive to stimulus level, regardless of calibration method, with the best test performance observed for moderate stimulus level conditions. (2) An effect of frequency was observed for all calibration methods, with the best test performance at 6 kHz and the worst performance at 8 kHz. (3) At clinically applicable stimulus levels, little difference in test performance among calibration methods was noted across frequencies, except at 8 kHz. At 8 kHz, FPL-based calibration methods provided superior performance compared with the standard SPL calibration. (4) A difference between FPL calibration methods was observed at 8 kHz, with the best test performance occurring for daily calibrations at body temperature.


CONCLUSIONS
With the exception of 8 kHz, there was little difference in test performance across calibration methods. At 8 kHz, AROCs and specificities for fixed sensitivities indicate that FPL-based calibration methods provide superior performance compared with the standard SPL calibration for clinically relevant levels. Temperature may have an impact on FPL calculations relative to DPOAE test performance. Although the differences in AROC among calibration procedures were not statistically significant, the present results indicate that standing wave errors may impact DPOAE test performance and can be reduced by using FPL, although the largest effects were restricted to 8 kHz.
Burke
Sienna R
SR
Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Rogers
Abigail R
AR
Neely
Stephen T
ST
Kopun
Judy G
JG
Tan
Hongyang
H
Gorga
Michael P
MP
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002138:Calibration; D002648:Child; D006311:Hearing Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D017084:Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous; D010469:Perceptual Distortion; D019986:Persons with Hearing Disabilities; D012372:ROC Curve; D012016:Reference Values; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D055815:Young Adult
J Acoust Soc Am. 1985 Nov;78(5):1596-602
4067075
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Mar;117(3 Pt 1):1248-59
15807014
J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Dec;122(6):3539-53
18247762
J Acoust Soc Am. 1978 Nov;64(5):1386-91
744838
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1990 May;147:3-14
2110797
J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Jul;124(1):288-300
18646977
J Acoust Soc Am. 1981 Oct;70(4):1025-35
7288039
J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Apr;97(4):2346-58
7714254
Hear Res. 1984 Jan;13(1):29-37
6706860
J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Dec;110(6):3119-31
11785813
Acta Otolaryngol. 1996 Jan;116(1):3-11
8820343
J Acoust Soc Am. 1993 Apr;93(4 Pt 1):2050-60
8473617
J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Sep;96(3):1494-500
7963014
Occup Environ Med. 2004 Nov;61(11):899-907
15477283
J Acoust Soc Am. 1992 Jan;91(1):470-85
1737890
Hear Res. 1994 Nov;80(2):146-52
7896573
Hear Res. 1992 Dec;64(1):133-41
1490896
J Acoust Soc Am. 1996 Nov;100(5):3268-74
8914309
Ear Hear. 1987 Oct;8(5 Suppl):60S-67S
3678652
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Apr 1;25(10):1190-5
17401008
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. 1998 Jun;103(6):3431-44
9637030
J Acoust Soc Am. 1995 Dec;98(6):3200-14
8550945
Auris Nasus Larynx. 2008 Jun;35(2):198-202
17869044
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. 2001 Nov;110(5 Pt 1):2456-69
11757935
Hear Res. 2000 Aug;146(1-2):47-56
10913883
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999 Dec;121(6):693-701
10580222
J Acoust Soc Am. 1986 Sep;80(3):783-93
3760332
J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Nov;104(5):2925-34
9821338
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2001 May 31;59(1):47-57
11376818
Science. 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285-93
3287615
Int J Audiol. 2006 Jun;45(6):337-43
16777780