Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission Test of Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Humans: Comparison of Unequal- and Equal-Level Stimuli

Abstract

Distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOEs) at the frequency of 2f1 — f2 (f1 < f2) were measured in 77 human adult ears with normal hearing or sensorineural hearing loss. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of DPOE tests conducted with two sets of stimuli: 1) L1 = 65, L2 = 50 dB sound pressure level (SPL) re 20 μPa (“65/50”), and 2) L1 = L2 = 65 dB SPL (“65/65”). Half-octave DPOE root-mean-square levels at 1,000, 2,000,4,000, and 6,000 Hz were computed from the initial DPOEs measured at 0.25-octave intervals. Correlation coefficient and decision-theory analyses were applied to evaluate the DPOE test performance. For both stimuli, DPOE level exhibited significant correlation with pure tone hearing threshold. When the criterion DPOE level distinguishing normal from impaired hearing was adjusted, the curves of sensitivity and specificity crossed, and the values at the crossing were higher than 80% at frequencies of 2,000 to 6,000 Hz for both stimuli. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which provides an overall evaluation of the test performance independent of the criterion DPOE level, was .90 or higher at 2,000 to 6,000 Hz for both stimuli. At 2,000 and 4,000 Hz, all measures of test performance were higher for the 65/50 stimulus than the 65/65 stimulus: area under the ROC curve (.96 to .97 versus .90 to .91, statistically significant, p < .001, Wilcoxon test), sensitivity/specificity (90% to 93% versus 80% to 85%), and correlation coefficient (.78 to .87 versus .66 to .79). At 1,000 and 6,000 Hz, the performances of the DPOE tests were similar for the two stimuli. These results support the conclusion that a DPOE test with L1 = 65 and L2 = 50 dB SPL provides a better performance than that with L1 = L2 = 65 dB SPL and recommend the use of stimuli with L1 being higher than L2 by about 15 dB. These results also support a growing view that 2f1 — f2 DPOEs can be utilized clinically as a reliable method of testing human sensorineural hearing loss.

Keywords

audition cochlea ear predictive efficiency receiver operating characteristic sensitivity specificity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kemp

. Evidence of mechanical nonlinearity and frequency selective wave amplification in the cochlea. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1979; 224: 37–45.

Kim

. Cochlear mechanics: Implications of electrophysiological and acoustical observations. Hear Res 1980; 2: 297–317.

Mountain

. Changes in endolymphatic potential and crossed olivocochlear bundle stimulation alter cochlear mechanics. Science 1980; 210: 71–2.

Harris

Lonsbury-Martin

Stagner

Coats

Martin

. Acoustic distortion products in humans: Systematic changes in amplitude as a function of F2/F1 ratio. J Acoust Soc Am 1989; 85: 220–9.

Gaskill

Brown

. The behavior of the acoustic distortion product, 2f1 — F2 from the human ear and its relation to auditory sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88: 821–39.

Lonsbury-Martin

Harris

Stagner

Hawkins

Martin

. Distortion product emissions in humans. I. Basic properties in normally hearing subjects. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1990; 99(Suppl 147): 3–14.

Smurzynski

Leonard

Kim

Lafreniere

Jung

. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in normal and impaired adult ears. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1990; 116: 1309–16.

Wiederhold

Mahoney

Kellogy

. Acoustic overstimulation reduces 2f1 — F2 cochlear emissions at all levels in the cat. In: Allen

Hall

Hubbard

Neely

Tubis

, eds. Peripheral auditory mechanisms. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1986: 322–9.

Whitehead

Lonsbury-Martin

Martin

. Evidence for two discrete sources of 2f1 — F2 distortion-product otoacoustic emission in rabbit. I. Differential dependence on stimulus parameters. J Acoust Soc Am 1992; 91: 1587–607.

10.

Zwicker

. Dependence of level and phase of the (2f1 -f2)-cancellation tone on frequency range, frequency difference, level of primaries and subject. J Acoust Soc Am 1981; 70: 1277–88.

11.

Hauser

Probst

. The influence of systematic primary-tone level variation L2 — L1 on the acoustic distortion product emission 2f1 — F2 in normal human ears. J Acoust Soc Am 1991; 89: 280–6.

12.

Mills

Norton

Rubel

. Vulnerability and adaptation of distortion product otoacoustic emissions to endocochlear potential variation. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 94: 2108–22.

13.

Whitehead

McCoy

Lonsbury-Martin

Martin

. Dependence of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions on primary levels in normal and impaired ears. I. Effects of decreasing L2 below L1. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 2346–58.

14.

Rosner

. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 2nd ed. Boston, Mass: Duxbury Press, 1986.

15.

Gorga

Neely

Bergman

. Otoacoustic emissions from normal-hearing and hearing impaired subjects: Distortion product responses. J Acoust Soc Am 1993; 95: 2050–60.

16.

Kim

Paparello

Jung

Smurzynski

Sun

. Distortion product otoacoustic emission test of sensorineural hearing loss: Performance regarding sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristics. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1996; 116: 3–11.

17.

Sun

Kim

Jung

Randolph

. The performance of distortion product otoacoustic emission test of sensorineural hearing loss in humans: Comparison of stimuli with L1 > L2 and L1 = L2. Meeting Abstract Assoc Res Otolaryngol 1995; 18: 125.

18.

Smurzynski

Kim

. Distortion-product and click-evoked otoacoustic emissions of normally hearing adults. Hear Res 1992; 58: 227–40.

19.

Smurzynski

Jung

Lafreniere

. Distortion-product and click-evoked otoacoustic emissions of preterm and full-term infants. Ear Hear 1993; 11: 121–7.

20.

Kim

Molnar

Matthews

. Cochlear mechanics: Nonlinear behavior in two tone responses as reflected in cochlear-nerve-fiber responses and in ear-canal sound pressure. J Acoust Soc Am 1980; 67: 1704–21.

21.

Siegel

Kim

Molnar

. Effects of altering organ of Corti on cochlear distortion products f2 — F 1 and 2f1 — F2. J Neurophysiol 1982; 47: 303–28.

22.

Zurek

Clark

Kim

. The behavior of acoustic distortion products in the ear canal of chinchillas with normal or damaged ears. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 72: 774–80.

23.

Martin

Lonsbury-Martin

Probst

Scheinin

Coats

. Acoustic distortion products in rabbits: JJ. Sites of origin revealed by suppression and pure tone exposures. Hear Res 1987; 28: 191–208.

24.

Hanley

McNeil

. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143: 29–36.

25.

Whitehead

Stagner

McCoy

Lonsbury-Martin

Martin

. Dependence of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions on primary levels in normal and impaired ears. II. Asymmetry in L1, L2 space. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97: 2359–77.

26.

Martin

Ohlms

Franklin

Harris

Lonsbury-Martin

. Distortion product emissions in humans, III. Influence of sensorineural hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1990; 99(Suppl 147): 30–42.

27.

Nelson

Kimberley

. Distortion-product emissions and auditory sensitivity in human ears with normal hearing and cochlear hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1992; 35: 1142–59.

28.

Kimberley

Nelson

. Distortion product emissions and sensorineural hearing loss. J Otolaryngol 1989; 18: 365–9.

29.

Harris

. Distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in humans with high frequency sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1990; 33: 594–600.

30.

Spektor

Leonard

Kim

Jung

Smurzynski

. Otoacoustic emissions in normal and hearing-impaired children and normal adults. Laryngoscope 1991; 101: 965–76.

31.

Siegel

Hirohata

. Sound calibration and distortion product otoacoustic emissions at high frequencies. Hear Res 1994; 80: 146–52.

32.

Marian

Kim

LaBrie

Leonard

. Specification of high frequency stimulus level in terms of acoustic power using Thevenin equivalent source in the measurement of DPOAEs. Meeting Abstract Assoc Res Otolaryngol 1994,17: 218.