Effects of Background Noise on Click-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions

Rhoades, K.W.; McPherson, Bradley; Smyth, Veronica; Kei, Joseph; Baglioni, A. J.

doi:10.1097/00003446-199812000-00006

Cited by 49 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Like other measures of auditory function such as otoacoustic emissions [Rhoades et al, 1998;Smith et al, 2001], ambient acoustic noise can be a confounding variable which may affect the accuracy of ASSR measurements. It is necessary to separate the signal (genuine ASSRs) from the noise (defined as all activities other than the ASSRs).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Ambient Acoustic Noise on the Auditory Steady-State Response Thresholds in Normally Hearing Adults

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of noise on auditory steady-state response (ASSR) has not been systematically studied, despite the fact that ASSR thresholds are sometimes measured in noisy environments. This study examined the effects of noise (speech babble) on the ASSR thresholds obtained from 31 normal hearing adults aged from 17 to 36 years (mean = 25 years). The ASSR thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz were measured in the right ear only using the Biologic MASTER system twice in quiet and in the presence of 55 dB A and 75 dB A of speech babble. The results showed no change in mean ASSR thresholds across the test-retest conditions in quiet. The mean ASSR thresholds obtained in the quiet conditions were 23.8, 22.5, 18.2 and 20.4 dB HL at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz, respectively. No significant shift in ASSR thresholds across all test frequencies was found when 55 dB A of speech babble was presented. However, when 75 dB A of noise was applied, the mean ASSR thresholds were significantly shifted by 9.5, 3.8, 4.2 and 5.8 dB at 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Ambient Acoustic Noise on the Auditory Steady-State Response Thresholds in Normally Hearing Adults

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Reflwin (Costa et al 2009;Rhoades et al 1998;Shi et al 2000). In the present study, nine reference standards were established using the AABR, HFT, TEOAE and DPOAE tests or their combinations for the determination of test performance of WBA.…”

Section: Wideband Absorbancementioning

confidence: 99%

Wideband absorbance measures in neonates and young infants

Aithal¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of middle ear status in young infants is a challenge in both screening and diagnostic contexts due to a lack of valid and objective tools of middle ear assessment . The standard tools used to determine the middle ear status in older children are neither efficient nor accurate in evaluating young infants.Wideband absorbance (WBA) is recommended as a tool for middle ear assessment in young infants due to its time efficiency, reliability, objectivity and ability WBA. The neonates were tested prior to their discharge from the hospital. In addition, a total of 36, 30, 33 and 30 infants were seen at 1, 2, 4, and 6 months of age, respectively. These infants were tested using HFT, DPOAE and WBA.The results revealed that conductive hearing loss was common among infants referred through NHS. Australian Aboriginal infants had significantly higher rates of middle ear pathology and conductive hearing loss at birth and showed poor resolution of middle ear pathology over time compared to non-Aboriginal infants. Use of a test of middle ear function (eg. WBA) as an adjunct to the screening tool to facilitate management and prioritisation of infants for further testing was recommended (Chapter Two). Normative ambient pressure WBA data were established for 66 neonates who passed a test battery of AABR, HFT, ASR, TEOAE and DPOAE tests. There was a significant difference in WBA across frequencies from 250 to 8000 Hz (Chapter Three). Test performance of WBA was compared across four single tests and five test battery reference standards in 192 neonates. The test performance of WBA against the test battery reference standards was better than that against single test reference standards (Chapter Four). Despite equal pass rates as determined by a test battery of HFT and DPOAE, the WBA of Aboriginal neonates who passed the test battery was significantly lower suggesting that Aboriginal neonates had more significant outer/middle ear conditions than Caucasian neonates. WBA appeared to be more sensitive to middle ear status than test battery comprising HFT and DPOAE (Chapter Five). In a cross sectional study of infants, developmental effects were evident during the first six months of life, with WBA reducing with age. Although data from the study could be used as reference standard for detecting middle ear disorders, further development of age-specific normative WBA was recommended (Chapter Six).

show abstract

“…Ukoliko je spoljašnji šum širokopojasni nestacionarni šum onda on utiče na smanjenje SNR i reproduktivnosti u delu spektra u kome se javlja. Istraživanje Rhoadesa i saradnika (Rhoades et al, 1998) .…”

Section: Uticaj Spoljašnjih Maskirajućih šUmova Na Merenje Oaeunclassified

“…Pored pomenutih, na merenje OAE mogu uticati kijanje, pomeranje jabučice i mišića. Navedeni procesi imaju uticaja na rezultate merenja u oblasti između 500 i 1500 Hz (Rhoades et al, 1998;Whitehead et al, 1993;Jacobson, 1994;Lasky, 1998;Tlumak, 2001). …”

Section: Uticaj Bioloških šUmova Na Merenje Oaeunclassified

“…Visok nivo pozitivnih rezultata OAE skrinig testova kod novorođenčadi kao i problemi pri merenjima u kliničkim uslovima prouzrokovani su višestrukim, različitim faktorima kao što su: neadekvatno postavljanje sonde (Kemp et al, 1990;Kemp, 2002), stanje spoljašnjeg i srednjeg uha McNellis, 1997;Vohr et al, 1993), stanje deteta (Norton et al, 2000;Kei et al, 1997), uzrast u trenutku testiranja (Kennedy, 1999;Kok et al, 1993;Albuquerque, 2001), položaj tela (Fukai et al, 2005;Kleine et al, 2001;Buki et al, 2000;Driscoll et al, 2004;Phillips, 1992;Driscoll et al, 1999), obučenost osoblja (Fukai et al, 2005;Kei et al, 1997;Newmark et al, 1997;Saitoh et al, 2006) i nivo spoljašnje i fiziološke buke (Rhoades et al, 1998;Popelka et al, 1998;Welch et al, 1996;Baer, 1992;Hunter et al, 1994).…”

Section: Pristupi U Potiskivanju šUma Pri Merenju Oaeunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

The influence of acoustic and biological noise on signal quality measurements of otoacoustic emissions

Subotić¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of Background Noise on Click-Evoked Otoacoustic Emissions

Abstract: The findings of the study indicate ambient noise levels for accurate CEOAE recording should not exceed 50 to 55 dB A of noise and alternatives to the default program should be considered in non-sound-treated situations.

Cited by 49 publications

References 29 publications

Effects of Ambient Acoustic Noise on the Auditory Steady-State Response Thresholds in Normally Hearing Adults

Effects of Ambient Acoustic Noise on the Auditory Steady-State Response Thresholds in Normally Hearing Adults

Wideband absorbance measures in neonates and young infants

The influence of acoustic and biological noise on signal quality measurements of otoacoustic emissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About