Although the importance of identifying significant hearing loss at an early age has long been recognized, it is generally acknowledged that newborn hearing screening programs in the United States have not been very successful. The problem has been that available techniques were impractical, too expensive, or invalid. This article summarizes the data regarding the use of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) in a universal newborn hearing screening program and describes various facets of program implementation. It is concluded that available data provide clear evidence that TEOAE can be used to significantly reduce the average age of identification for hearing loss in the U.S.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), Committee on Infant Hearing (1989). Audiologic screening of newborn infants who are at risk for hearing impairment. ASHA, 31, 89–92.
2.
BlakeP. E.HallJ. W. (1990). The status of state-wide policies for neonatal hearing screening, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 1, 67–74.
3.
BonfilsP.UzielA.PujolR. (1988). Screening for auditory dysfunction in infants by evoked otoacoustic emissions. Archives of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, 114, 887–890.
4.
BrackettD.MaxonA. B.BlackwellP. M. (1993). Intervention issues created by successful universal newborn hearing screening. Seminars in Hearing, 14, 88–104.
5.
Durieux-SmithA.PictonT.EdwardsC.GoodmanJ. T.MacMurrayB. (1985). The Crib-O-Cram in the NICU: An evaluation based on brain stem electric response audiometry. Ear and Hearing6, 20–24.
6.
ElssmannS. F.MatkinN. D.SaboM. P. (1987). Early identification of congenital sensorineural hearing impairment. The Hearing journal, 40, 13–17.
7.
FritschM. H.SommerA. (1991). Handbook of congenital and early onset hearing loss.New York: Igaku-Shoin.
8.
HallJ. W.III (1992). Handbook of auditory evoked responses.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
JacobsonJ. T. (1990). Issues in newborn ABR screening, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 1, 121–124.
10.
JergerJ. (1990). Neonatal screening. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 1 (Editorial).
11.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (1991). 1990 position statement. ASHA, 33 (Suppl. 5), 3–6.
12.
KennedyC. R.KimmL.DeesD. C.EvansP. I. P.HunterM.LentonS.ThorntonR. D. (1991). Otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem responses in the newborn. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 66, 1124–1129.
13.
LevinH. M. (1983). Cost-effectiveness: A primer.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
MaukC. W.WhiteK. R.MortensenL. B.BehrensT. R. (1991). The effectiveness of screening programs based on high-risk characteristics in early identification of hearing impairment. Ear and Hearing, 12, 312–319.
15.
MaxonA. B.WhiteK. R.VohrB. R.BehrensT. R. (1993). Feasibility of identifying risk for conductive hearing loss in a newborn universal hearing screening program. Seminars in Hearing, 14, 73–87.
16.
McCormickB. (1983). Hearing screening by health visitors: A critical appraisal of the Distraction Test. Health Visitor, 56, 449–451.
17.
McCormickB. (1986). Screening for hearing impairment in the first year of life. Midwife, Health Visitor, and Community Nurse, 22, 199–202.
18.
MooreW. C.JosephsonJ. A.MaukG. W. (1991). Identification of children with hearing impairments: A baseline survey. The Volta Review, 93(4), 187–196.
19.
PlinkertP. K.SesterhannR. A.ZennerH. P. (1990). Evaluation of otoacoustic emissions in high risk infants by using an easy and rapid objective auditory screening method. European Archives of Oto-Rhinolaryngology, 247, 356–360.
20.
ScanlonP. E.BamfordJ. M. (1990). Early identification of hearing loss: Screening and surveillance methods. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 65, 479–485.
21.
ShimizuH.WaltersR. J.ProctorL. R.KennedyD. W.AllenM. C.MarkowitzR. K. (1990). Identification of hearing impairment in the neonatal intensive care unit population: Outcome of a five-year project at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. Seminars in Hearing, 11, 150–160.
22.
SteinL.ClarkS.KrausN. (1983). The hearing-impaired infant: Patterns of identification and habilitation. Ear and Hearing, 4, 232–236.
23.
StevensJ. C.WebbH. D.HutchinsonJ. (1989). Click evoked otoacoustic emissions compared with brainstem electric response. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 64, 1105–1111.
24.
StevensJ. C.WebbH. D.HutchinsonJ. (1990). Click evoked otoacoustic emissions in neonatal screening. Ear and Hearing, 11, 128–133.
25.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (1990). Healthy people 2000: National health promotion and disease prevention objectives.Washington, DC: Public Health Service.
26.
UzielA.PironJ. P. (1991). Evoked otoacoustic emissions from normal newborns and babies admitted to an intensive care baby unit. Acta Otolaryngolica, Suppl.482, 85–91.
27.
VohrB. R.WhiteK. R.MaxonA. B.JohnsonM. J. (1993). Factors affecting the interpretation of transient evoked otoacoustic emission results in neonatal hearing screening. Seminars in Hearing, 14, 57–72.
28.
WhiteK. R.BehrensT. B., (Eds.) (1993). The Rhode Island hearing assessment project: Implications for universal newborn hearing screening [Special issue]. Seminars in Hearing, 74(1).
