Relationship Between Distortion Product - Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAEs) and High-Frequency Acoustic Immittance Measures.

BACKGROUND Pathologies that alter the impedance of the middle ear may consequently modify the DPOAE amplitude. The aim of this study was to correlate information from 2 different clinical procedures assessing middle ear status. Data from DPOAE responses (both DP-Gram and DP I/O functions) were correlated with data from multi-component tympanometry at 1000 Hz. MATERIAL AND METHODS The subjects were divided into a double-peak group (DPG) and a single-peak group (SPG) depending on 1000 Hz tympanogram pattern. Exclusion criteria (described in the Methods section) were applied to both groups and finally only 31 ears were assigned to each group. The subjects were also assessed with traditional tympanometry and behavioral audiometry. RESULTS Compared to the single-peak group, in terms of the 226 Hz tympanometry data, subjects in the DPG group presented: (i) higher values of ear canal volume; (ii) higher peak pressure, and (iii) significantly higher values of acoustic admittance. DPOAE amplitudes were lower in the DPG group only at 6006 Hz, but the difference in amplitude between the DPG and SPG groups decreased as the frequency increased. Statistical differences were observed only at 1001 Hz and a borderline difference at 1501 Hz. In terms of DPOAE I/O functions, significant differences were observed only in 4 of the 50 tested points. CONCLUSIONS The 1000-Hz tympanometric pattern significantly affects the structure of DPOAE responses only at 1001 Hz. In this context, changes in the properties of the middle ear (as detected by the 1000 Hz tympanometry) can be considered as prime candidates for the observed variability in the DP-grams and the DP I/O functions.

Repeatability of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in young adults.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the repeatability and variability of TEOAE characteristics in hearing screening tests performed under practical conditions on normal subjects. MATERIAL/METHODS: A group of 11 young, normal-hearing subjects aged 19-24 years was tested. They were examined otologically and audiologically prior to the tests and no ear pathologies were found. Responses were acquired with a commercially available instrument (Integrity, Vivosonic Inc.) using a standardized OAE protocol. The TEOAE tests were repeated 3 times in each subject at random intervals within 24 h. The analyzed parameters of interest were: (i) whole wave reproducibility (WWR) and; (ii) signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). RESULTS: WWR and SNR did not differ significantly among the 3 measurement sessions. In most cases the differences in WWR among measurements were around 1-2% and for SNRs they were 1-4 dB SNRs and were highest in the 1-2 kHz range. TEOAE-based tests can be useful tools for hearing screening. CONCLUSIONS: The tests can give reliable results provided that adequate procedures are used and low-noise conditions are ensured. The tests are best complemented with other examinations to widen the range of ear pathologies able to be detected.