Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(09): 826-834
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17045
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Accounting for the Occlusion Effect with Insert Earphones

Authors

  • Dorothy Neave-DiToro

    *   Department of Speech Communication Arts and Sciences, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, NY

  • Amanda DeSantolo

    †   Doctor of Audiology Program, The Graduate School of the City University of New York, New York, NY

  • Michael Bergen

    *   Department of Speech Communication Arts and Sciences, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, NY

  • Adrienne Rubinstein

    *   Department of Speech Communication Arts and Sciences, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, NY
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

Also available at
  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

There are clinical implications associated with knowing when the occlusion effect (OE) must be accounted for during bone conduction (BC) testing because spurious results can occur when errors are made in this regard. The amount of OE produced when insert earphones (IEs) are used varies in the literature; thus, further investigation is warranted.

Purpose:

The purpose of this project was to determine the OE during BC threshold measurements under the following occluding conditions used clinically: when using partial insertion (PI) versus full insertion (FI) depth and when occluding one versus both ears.

Research Design:

A descriptive within-subjects design was used in this study.

Study Sample:

Twenty-two adults with mean four-frequency pure tone averages of 24 dB HL, aged 40–83 yr, participated.

Intervention:

BC thresholds were obtained at 250, 500, and 1000 Hz under seven conditions: (1) both ears unoccluded, (2) left ear occluded with PI, (3) right ear occluded with PI, (4) both ears occluded with PI, (5) left ear occluded with FI, (6) right ear occluded with FI, (7) both ears occluded with FI. For PI, one half of the length of the IE was beyond the opening of the ear canal. For FI, the lateral edge of the foam insert was flush with the entrance to the ear canal.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Mean OEs were compared with previously published data. In addition, variability in the data was examined using frequency distribution plots as well as cumulative frequency and percentile values.

Results:

Mean OEs of 5–13 dB were present in all but the FI condition at 1000 Hz where the OE was <3 dB. Differences between PI and FI conditions were present at each frequency measured, irrespective of whether one or both ears were occluded. The shifts in threshold were consistently more prevalent and greater for the PI than the FI conditions overall. Mean differences between the one-ear and both-ears conditions were not clinically significant. Clinically significant variability in the data was noted, except when comparing the one-ear versus both-ears conditions.

Conclusions:

Occluding the ear during initial BC measurements may artificially improve the thresholds and create or exaggerate an air-bone gap. Thus, initial BC testing should be performed unoccluded at 250, 500, and 1000 Hz. There is a need to account for the OE even when the IE is flush with the ear canal to avoid insufficient masking.

Key Words

air-bone gap - bone conduction - insert earphones - interaural attenuation - masking - occlusion effect - thresholds - unoccluded