COAE thresholds: 1. Effects of equal-amplitude versus subtraction methods.
COAE thresholds: 1. Effects of equal-amplitude versus subtraction methods.
复制标题
COAE 阈值： 1. 等幅与减法方法的影响。
DOI：
10.1044/jslhr.4005.1164
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Prieve,BA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fitzgerald,TS;Prieve,BA
虽然研究表明，高强度刺激引起的点击诱发耳声发射（coae）对识别听力损失很有用，但coae预测行为阈值的能力尚未得到充分的测试。比较COAE阈值和行为阈值的研究结果是模棱两可的，可能是因为需要更严格的方法来估计COAE阈值。本研究旨在解决COAE阈值测试中的几个方法学问题，特别是两种刺激呈现方法对COAE测试和阈值计算的影响。为了使COAE阈值估计在参与者之间保持一致，COAE阈值计算基于参与者之间的平均噪声底电平。COAE和噪声底电平测量在15名参与者使用等振幅的咔哒声和减法。将宽带COAE分成1/3个倍频带进行分析，检验输入/输出函数，计算每个1/3倍频带的COAE阈值。两种刺激方法的比较显示出一些差异。等幅法的平均噪声底电平比减法测量的平均噪声底电平低约6 dB。在许多情况下，等振幅法诱发的coae振幅高于减法诱发的coae。使用等振幅点击刺激测量的COAE阈值显著低于使用减法测量的COAE阈值。使用减法获得的显著较高的阈值可能部分归因于减法过程降低了COAE振幅，而不仅仅是更高的噪声水平。两种刺激方式的输入/输出函数斜率无显著差异。结果表明，等幅法可以在相同的测试时间内获得较低的本底噪声和较大的幅值COAE，是较好的COAE阈值测试方法。
Although research has demonstrated that click-evoked otoacoustic emissions (COAEs) elicited by high-level stimuli are useful for identifying hearing loss, the ability of COAEs to predict behavioral thresholds has not been adequately tested. Results of studies comparing COAE thresholds and behavioral thresholds have been equivocal, perhaps due to the need for a more rigorous approach to COAE threshold estimation. The present study was designed to address several methodological concerns in COAE threshold testing, particularly the effects of two methods of stimulus presentation on COAE testing and threshold calculation. In an attempt to make COAE threshold estimation consistent across participants, COAE threshold calculations were based on mean noise floor levels across participants. COAE and noise floor levels were measured in 15 participants using both equal-amplitude clicks and a subtraction method. Broadband COAEs were analyzed into 1/3 octave bands, so that input/output functions could be examined and COAE thresholds could be calculated for each 1/3 octave band. Comparison of the two stimulus methods indicated several differences. Mean noise floor levels for the equal-amplitude method were approximately 6 dB lower than those measured for the subtraction method across frequency. In many cases COAEs evoked using the equal-amplitude method were higher in amplitude than those evoked using the subtraction method. COAE thresholds measured using the equal-amplitude click stimuli were significantly lower than those measured using the subtraction method. The significantly higher thresholds obtained using the subtraction method may be attributed in part to the reduction of COAE amplitude by the subtraction procedure, and not merely to the higher noise level. Slopes of the input/output functions were not significantly different between the two stimulus methods. These results suggest that the equal-amplitude method is preferable for COAE threshold testing because lower noise floor and larger amplitude COAEs may be obtained in the same test time.
登录
查看更多内容
正常听力婴儿和儿童的诱发声发射：新数据和问题
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
S. Norton;J. Widen
通讯作者：
J. Widen
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1992
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
M. Robinette
通讯作者：
M. Robinette
感音神经性听力损失中点击诱发的耳声发射和听力阈值
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
L. Collet;V. Levy;E. Veuillet;E. Truy;A. Morgon
通讯作者：
A. Morgon
DOI：
10.3109/01050399609047559
发表时间：
1996-01-01
期刊：
SCANDINAVIAN AUDIOLOGY
影响因子：
--
作者：
Engdahl, B;Woxen, O;Mair, IWS
通讯作者：
Mair, IWS
延迟诱发耳声发射及其高斯形压力脉冲的抑制
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
E. Zwicker
通讯作者：
E. Zwicker