An in-situ calibration method and the effects on stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions

BioMedical Engineering OnLine

Shixiong Chen¹  Haoshi Zhang¹  Lan Wang¹  Guanglin Li¹ 

[1] Key Laboratory of Human-Machine-Intelligence Synergic System, Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Shenzhen, Guangdong 518055, China

关键词: Hearing loss;    In-situ calibration;    Swept tones;    Stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions;    Standing wave;   

Others  :  1084727
DOI  :  10.1186/1475-925X-13-95

 received in 2014-04-25, accepted in 2014-07-01,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The interference between the incoming sound wave and the acoustic energy reflected by the tympanic membrane (TM) forms a standing wave in human ear canals. The existence of standing waves causes various problems when measuring otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) that are soft sounds closely related with the functional status of the inner ear. The purpose of this study was to propose an in-situ calibration method to overcome the standing-wave problem and to improve the accuracy of OAE measurements.

Methods

In this study, the sound pressure level (SPL) at the TM was indirectly estimated by measuring the SPL at the entrance of the ear canal and the acoustic characteristics of the earphone system, so that sound energy entering the middle ear could be controlled more precisely. Then an in-situ calibration method based on the estimated TM SPL was proposed to control the stimulus level when measuring the stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions (SFOAEs) evoked by swept tones. The results of swept-tone SFOAEs with the in-situ calibration were compared with two other calibration methods currently used in the clinic.

Results

Our results showed that the estimate of the SPL at the TM was rather successful with the maximal error less than 3.2 dB across all the six subjects. With the high definition OAE spectra achieved by using swept tones, it was found that the calibration methods currently used in the clinic might over-compensate the sound energy delivered to the middle ear around standing-wave frequencies and the SFOAE amplitude could be elevated by more than 7 dB as a consequence. In contrast, the in-situ calibration did not suffer from the standing-wave problem and the results could reflect the functional status of the inner ear more truthfully.

Conclusions

This study suggests that calibration methods currently used in the clinic may produce unreliable results. The in-situ calibration based on the estimated TM SPL could avoid the standing-wave problem and might be incorporated into clinical OAE measurements for more accurate hearing loss screenings.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Chen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Siegel JH: Ear-Canal Standing Waves and High-Frequency Sound Calibration Using Otoacoustic Emission Probes. J Acoust Soc Am 1994, 95(5):2589-2597.
• [2]Lawton BW, Stinson MR: Standing wave patterns in the human Ear canal used for estimation of acoustic energy reflectance at the eardrum. J Acoust Soc Am 1986, 79(4):1003-1009.
• [3]Dirks DD, Kincaid GE: Basic acoustic considerations of ear canal probe measurements. Ear Hear 1987, 8(5 Suppl):60S-67S.
• [4]Mehrgardt S, Mellert V: Transformation characteristics of the external human ear. J Acoust Soc Am 1977, 61(6):1567-1576.
• [5]Charles MW: The effect of calibration tolerance values on obtained audiometric threshold: A hearing conservation perspective. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1984, 45(2):110-116.
• [6]Withnell RH, Jeng PS, Waldvogel K, Morgenstein K, Allen JB: An in situ calibration for hearing thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 2009, 125(3):1605-1611.
• [7]Knudsen LV, Oberg M, Nielsen C, Naylor G, Kramer SE: Factors influencing help seeking, hearing Aid uptake, hearing Aid Use and satisfaction with hearing aids: a review of the literature. Trends Amplif 2010, 14(3):127-154.
• [8]Hickson L, Clutterbuck S, Khan A: Factors associated with hearing aid fitting outcomes on the IOI-HA. Int J Audiol 2010, 49(8):586-595.
• [9]Burke SR, Rogers AR, Neely ST, Kopun JG, Tan H, Gorga MP: Influence of calibration method on distortion-product otoacoustic emission measurements: I. test performance. Ear Hear 2010, 31(4):533-545.
• [10]Whitehead ML, Stagner BB, Lonsbury-Martin BL, Martin GK: Effects of ear-canal standing waves on measurements of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 1995, 98(6):3200-3214.
• [11]Siegel JH, Hirohata ET: Sound calibration and distortion product otoacoustic emissions at high frequencies. Hear Res 1994, 80(2):146-152.
• [12]Scheperle RA, Neely ST, Kopun JG, Gorga MP: Influence of in situ, sound-level calibration on distortion-product otoacoustic emission variability. J Acoust Soc Am 2008, 124(1):288-300.
• [13]Whitehead ML, McCoy MJ, Lonsbury-Martin BL, Martin GK: 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(4):2346-2358.
• [14]Neely ST, Gorga MP: Comparison between intensity and pressure as measures of sound level in the ear canal. J Acoust Soc Am 1998, 104(5):2925-2934.
• [15]Rogers AR, Burke SR, Kopun JG, Tan H, Neely ST, Gorga MP: Influence of calibration method on distortion-product otoacoustic emission measurements: II. threshold prediction. Ear Hear 2010, 31(4):546-554.
• [16]Lewis JD, McCreery RW, Neely ST, Stelmachowicz PG: Comparison of in-situ calibration methods for quantifying input to the middle ear. J Acoust Soc Am 2009, 126(6):3114-3124.
• [17]Kemp DT: Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 1978, 64(5):1386-1391.
• [18]Kalluri R, Shera CA: Distortion-product source unmixing: A test of the two-mechanism model for DPOAE generation. J Acoust Soc Am 2001, 109(2):622-637.
• [19]Shera CA, Guinan JJ: Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: a taxonomy for mammalian OAEs. J Acoust Soc Am 1999, 105(1):782-798.
• [20]Walsh EJ, McGee J: Frequency selectivity in the auditory periphery: similarities between damaged and developing ears. Am J Otolaryngol 1990, 11(1):23-32.
• [21]Cheatham MA, Katz ED, Charaziak K, Dallos P, Siegel JH: Using stimulus frequency emissions to characterize cochlear function in mice. AIP Conf Proc 2011, 1403(1):383-388.
• [22]Siegel JH, Cerka AJ, Recio-Spinoso A, Temchin AN, van Dijk P, Ruggero MA: Delays of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions and cochlear vibrations contradict the theory of coherent reflection filtering. J Acoust Soc Am 2005, 118(4):2434-2443.
• [23]Choi YS, Lee SY, Parham K, Neely ST, Kim DO: Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission: measurements in humans and simulations with an active cochlear model. J Acoust Soc Am 2008, 123(5):2651-2669.
• [24]Chen S, Deng J, Bian L, Li G: Stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions evoked by swept tones. Hear Res 2013, 306:104-114.
• [25]Müller S, Massarani P: Transfer-function measurement with sweeps. J Audio Eng Soc 2001, 49(6):443-471.
• [26]Allen JB: Measurement of eardrum acoustic impedance. In Periphery Auditory Mechanisms. Volume 64. Edited by JB Allen JH, Hubbard A, Neely ST, Tubis A. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1986:43-51.
• [27]Keefe DH, Ling R, Bulen JC: Method to measure acoustic impedance and reflection coefficient. J Acoust Soc Am 1992, 91(1):470-485.
• [28]Lineton B, Lutman ME: A parametric model of the spectral periodicity of stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 114(2):883-895.
• [29]Zweig G, Shera CA: The origin of periodicity in the spectrum of evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 1995, 98(4):2018-2047.
• [30]Gilman S, Dirks D: Acoustics of ear canal measurement of eardrum SPL. J Acoust Soc Am 1985, 78(S1):S12.
• [31]McCreery RW, Pittman A, Lewis J, Neely ST, Stelmachowicz PG: Use of forward pressure level to minimize the influence of acoustic standing waves during probe-microphone hearing-aid verification. J Acoust Soc Am 2009, 126(1):15-24.
• [32]Wagner W, Heppelmann G, Vonthein R, Zenner HP: Test-retest repeatability of distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear 2008, 29(3):378-391.
• [33]Sockalingam R, Lee Choi J, Choi D, Kei J: Test-retest reliability of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in children with normal hearing: a preliminary study. Int J Audiol 2007, 46(7):351-354.
• [34]Stuart A, Passmore AL, Culbertson DS, Jones SM: Test-retest reliability of low-level evoked distortion product otoacoustic emissions. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009, 52(3):671-681.
• [35]Chen S, Deng J, Bian L, Li G: A new method of hearing loss screening using otoacoustic emissions evoked by swept tones. IEEE Healthc Innov Conf 2012, 1:240-243.
• [36]Kemp DT: Otoacoustic emissions, their origin in cochlear function, and use. Br Med Bull 2002, 63:223-241.
• [37]Wagner W, Plinkert PK: The relationship between auditory threshold and evoked otoacoustic emissions. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1999, 256(4):177-188.
• [38]Goodman SS, Withnell RH, Shera CA: The origin of SFOAE microstructure in the guinea pig. Hear Res 2003, 183(1–2):7-17.