Bone-Conduction Hearing and the Occlusion Effect in Otosclerosis and Normal Controls

Tsai, Vance; Ostroff, Jodi M.; Korman, Mark; Chen, Joseph M.

doi:10.1097/01.mao.0000179996.82402.e0

Cited by 35 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the osseotympanic mode, sound energy causes vibration of the skull and para-auditory structures (i.e. jaw and soft tissue), and these vibrations are transmitted from the external auditory canal to the ossicles through the tympanic membrane [12] . The disruption of the ossicular chain may prevent the effect of the inertial and osseotympanic modes, and this is thought to be the main cause of the Carhart effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Carhart Effect in Congenital Middle Ear Malformation with Both an Intact External Ear Canal and a Mobile Stapes Footplate

Sakamoto

Kakigi²,

Kashio³

et al. 2011

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The medical charts of 41 ears with congenital middle ear malformation with both an intact external ear canal and a mobile stapes footplate were reviewed retrospectively to study the Carhart effect. The operations were categorized as successful or unsuccessful according to the extent of decrease in the average air-bone gap. Statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups with respect to the changes in pure-tone average and the changes in the bone conduction (BC) threshold at 1 and 2 kHz. Linear regression analysis revealed weak correlations between the change in the BC threshold and the postoperative BC threshold at an overall level and at the 4 frequencies tested. Stapes ankylosis is a main cause of the Carhart effect. The present study showed that in congenital middle ear malformation, the Carhart effect was caused not only by stapes ankylosis but also by other types of disruption in the ossicular chain.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Carhart Effect in Congenital Middle Ear Malformation with Both an Intact External Ear Canal and a Mobile Stapes Footplate

Sakamoto

Kakigi²,

Kashio³

et al. 2011

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…increased loudness in an ear with an occluded ear canal when the bone vibrator is applied to the skull. Therefore, the stimulus frequency was limited to a 2.0-kHz tone, as there is no occlusion effect with 2.0 kHz [Dean and Martin, 2000;Tsai et al, 2005]. In addition, with 2.0 kHz, there is no tactile sensation when the vibrator is hand held or when it is applied to the skin of the subject [Hyvarinen et al, 1968].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thresholds to Soft Tissue Conduction Stimulation Compared to Bone Conduction Stimulation

Adelman

Sohmer²

2012

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to compare the thresholds to a standard clinical bone vibrator applied to sites on the head over skull bone (bone conduction, BC) and to soft tissue sites on the head and neck (soft tissue conduction, STC) with static application forces of 100 and 500 g in order to assess the possibility that STC is actually a form of BC, since both are elicited by stimulation with the same bone vibrator. Thresholds to 2.0-kHz tones were assessed in dB hearing level settings of the audiometer in the BC stimulation mode. There was no difference in threshold between forces of 100 and 500 g when applied to the skull bone sites (e.g. mastoid, forehead). However, at soft tissue sites (e.g. below the ear lobe, under the chin, on the sterno-cleido-mastoid muscle), thresholds to 100 g were significantly higher (poorer) than those to 500 g. With the 500 g static force (and also with the 100 g force), the thresholds at the STC sites were higher (poorer) than those at the skull bone sites. These findings have implications for understanding BC and STC modes of auditory activation.

show abstract

“…At this frequency there is also no tactile sensation when the bone vibrator is manually held by the subject [19] and there is no occlusion eVect [18,20,21]. In order to be certain that the bone vibrator applied to the non-osseous sites was not producing air-conducted sounds, the vibrator was initially held above, but not touching, each of the nonosseous sites.…”

Section: Control Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions in the cochlea between air conduction and osseous and non-osseous bone conduction stimulation

Adelman

Fraenkel

Kriksunov

et al. 2011

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since air-conducted (AC) and clinical (mastoid) bone-conducted (BC) sounds interact in the cochlea (e.g. pitch, cancellation, masking, beats), it has been thought that both AC and BC stimulations lead to a mechanical wave in the cochlea. However, there are also "non-osseous" forms of BC, i.e. auditory sensation produced when the clinical bone vibrator is applied to "non-osseous" soft tissue sites. In the present study, such "non-osseous" sites were identified (e.g. eye, cheek, neck) and they interacted with AC and osseous BC (pitch matching, beats, masking), indicating that all of these forms of auditory stimulation converge in the cochlea, producing the same pattern of mechanical activity, leading to their interactions.

show abstract

Bone-Conduction Hearing and the Occlusion Effect in Otosclerosis and Normal Controls

Cited by 35 publications

References 18 publications

Evaluation of the Carhart Effect in Congenital Middle Ear Malformation with Both an Intact External Ear Canal and a Mobile Stapes Footplate

Evaluation of the Carhart Effect in Congenital Middle Ear Malformation with Both an Intact External Ear Canal and a Mobile Stapes Footplate

Thresholds to Soft Tissue Conduction Stimulation Compared to Bone Conduction Stimulation

Interactions in the cochlea between air conduction and osseous and non-osseous bone conduction stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About