Examining the Factors that Contribute to Non-Monotonic Growth of the [Formula: see text] Otoacoustic Emission in Humans

Reliable Long-Term Serial Evaluation of Cochlear Function Using Pulsed Distortion-Product Otoacoustic Emissions: Analyzing Levels and Pressure Time Courses

OBJECTIVES

To date, there is no international standard on how to use distortion-product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) in serial measurements to accurately detect changes in the function of the cochlear amplifier due, for example, to ototoxic therapies, occupational noise, or the development of regenerative therapies. The use of clinically established standard DPOAE protocols for serial monitoring programs appears to be hampered by multiple factors, including probe placement and calibration effects, signal-processing complexities associated with multiple sites of emission generation as well as suboptimal selection of stimulus parameters.

DESIGN

Pulsed DPOAEs were measured seven times within 3 months for f2 = 1 to 14 kHz and L2 = 25 to 80 dB SPL in 20 ears of 10 healthy participants with normal hearing (mean age = 32.1 ± 9.7 years). L1 values were computed from individual optimal-path parameters derived from the corresponding individual DPOAE level map in the first test session. Three different DPOAE metrics for evaluating the functional state of the cochlear amplifier were investigated with respect to their test-retest reliability: (1) the interference-free, nonlinear-distortion component level (LOD), (2) the time course of the DPOAE-envelope levels, LDP(t), and (3) the squared, zero-lag correlation coefficient () between the time courses of the DPOAE-envelope pressures, pDP(t), measured in two sessions. The latter two metrics include the two main DPOAE components and their state of interference.

RESULTS

Collated over all sessions and frequencies, the median absolute difference for LOD was 1.93 dB and for LDP(t) was 2.52 dB; the median of was 0.988. For the low (f2 = 1 to 3 kHz), mid (f2 = 4 to 9 kHz), and high (f2 = 10 to 14 kHz) frequency ranges, the test-retest reliability of LOD increased with increasing signal to noise ratio (SNR).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the knowledge gained from this study on the test-retest reliability of pulsed DPOAE signals and the current literature, we propose a DPOAE protocol for future serial monitoring applications that takes into account the following factors: (1) separation of DPOAE components, (2) use of individually optimal stimulus parameters, (3) SNR of at least 15 dB, (4) accurate pressure calibration, (5) consideration of frequency- and level-dependent test-retest reliabilities and corresponding reference ranges, and (6) stimulus levels L2 that are as low as possible with sufficient SNR to capture the nonlinear functional state of the cochlear amplifier operating at its highest gain.

Characterizing the Relationship Between Reflection and Distortion Otoacoustic Emissions in Normal-Hearing Adults

Otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) arise from one (or a combination) of two basic generation mechanisms in the cochlea: nonlinear distortion and linear reflection. As a result of having distinct generation processes, these two classes of emissions may provide non-redundant information about hair-cell integrity and show distinct sensitivities to cochlear pathology. Here, we characterize the relationship between reflection and distortion emissions in normal hearers across a broad frequency and stimulus-level space using novel analysis techniques. Furthermore, we illustrate the promise of this approach in a small group of individuals with mild-moderate hearing loss. A "joint-OAE profile" was created by measuring interleaved swept-tone stimulus-frequency OAEs (SFOAEs) and 2f1-f2 distortion-product OAEs (DPOAEs) in the same ears using well-considered parameters. OAE spectra and input/output functions were calculated across five octaves. Using our specific recording protocol and analysis scheme, SFOAEs in normal hearers had higher levels than did DPOAEs, with the most pronounced differences occurring at the highest stimulus levels. Also, SFOAE compression occurred at higher stimulus levels (than did DPOAE compression) and its growth in the compressed region was steeper. The diagnostic implications of these findings and the influence of the measurement protocol on both OAEs (and on their relationship) are discussed.