Download PDF
Semin Hear 2001; 22(4): 361-376
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-19107
Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Otoacoustic Emissions in Relation to Auditory Perception: Beyond the Pure-Tone Audiogram

Jacek Smurzynski1 , Frances P. Harris2 , Rudolf Probst1
  • 1Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland and
  • 2Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 December 2001 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Investigations of the relation of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) and perception of auditory stimuli, other than the pure tones used in routine clinical audiometry, fall into two broad categories: (1) direct comparisons of OAE and perceptual measures that are intended to further our understanding of cochlear mechanisms and (2) explorations of the influence of more versus less active ears, as characterized by their OAEs, on psychoacoustic performance. Although both OAEs and perceptual measures derive, at least in part, from similar peripheral mechanisms, there are differences between them. It is likely that spontaneous OAEs (SOAEs) and/or strong evoked OAEs (EOAEs) influence auditory perception when measures are made at low levels, thus contributing to some of the variability reported in psychoacoustic studies. It is less likely that OAEs influence perception of complex signals or perceptual tasks involving signal levels greater than approximately 30 dB SPL.

KEYWORD

Otoacoustic emissions - auditory processing - psychoacoustics - threshold microstructure - aspirin

REFERENCES

  • 1 Micheyl C, Collet L. Involvement of the olivocochlear bundle in the detection of tones in noise.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1996;  99 1604-1610
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kemp D T. Otoacoustic emissions: distorted echoes of the cochlea's travelling wave. In: Berlin CI, ed. Otoacoustic Emissions: Basic Science and Clinical Applications San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group 1998: 1-59
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Elliott E. A ripple effect in the audiogram.  Nature . 1958;  181 1076
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Probst R. Otoacoustic emissions: an overview.  Adv Otorhinolaryngol . 1990;  44 1-91
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pasanen E G, McFadden D. An automated procedure for identifying spontaneous otoacoustic emissions.  J Acoust Soc Am . 2000;  108 1105-1116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Braun M. Frequency spacing of multiple spontaneous otoacoustic emissions shows relation to critical bands: a large-scale cumulative study.  Hear Res . 1997;  114 197-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 von Dallmayr C. Spontane oto-akustische Emissionen: Statistik und Reaktion auf akustische Störtöne.  Acustica . 1985;  59 67-75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Talmadge C L, Long G R, Murphy W J, Tubis A. New off-line method for detecting spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in human subjects.  Hear Res . 1993;  71 170-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Zwicker E. Otoacoustic emissions and cochlear travelling waves. In: Wilson JP, Kemp DT, eds. Cochlear Mechanisms: Structure, Function, and Models New York: Plenum 1989: 359-366
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Bright K E. Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. In: Robinette MS, Glattke TJ, eds. Otoacoustic Emissions: Clinical Applications New York: Thieme 1997: 46-62
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Long G R, Tubis A. Investigations into the nature of the association between threshold microstructure and otoacoustic emissions.  Hear Res . 1988;  36 125-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zwicker E, Schloth E. Interrelation of different oto-acoustic emissions.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1984;  75 1148-1154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cohen M F. Detection threshold microstructure and its effect on temporal integration data.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1982;  71 405-409
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Smurzynski J, Probst R. Effects of signal duration on threshold microstructure in ears with spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. In: Lewis ER, Long GR, Lyon RF, Narins PM, Steele CR, Hecht-Poinar E, eds. Diversity in Auditory Mechanics Singapore: World Scientific 1997: 270-276
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Smurzynski J, Probst R. Intensity discrimination, temporal integration and gap detection by normally-hearing subjects with weak and strong otoacoustic emissions.  Audiology . 1999;  38 251-256
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Avan P, Wit H P, Guitton M, Mom T, Bonfils P. On the spectral periodicity of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions from normal and damaged cochleas.  J Acoust Soc Am . 2000;  108 1117-1127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Shera C A, Guinan J J. Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: a taxonomy for mammalian OAEs.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1999;  105 782-798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 He N, Schmiedt R A. Fine structure of the 2f 1-f 2 acoustic distortion product: effects of primary level and frequency ratios.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1997;  101 3554-3565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Talmadge C L, Tubis A, Long G R, Piskorski P. Modeling otoacoustic emission and hearing threshold fine structures.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1998;  104 1517-1543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lutman M E, Deeks J. Correspondence amonst microstructure patterns observed in otoacoustic emissions and Békésy audiometry.  Audiology . 1999;  38 263-266
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mauermann M, Uppenkamp S, van Hengel W J P, Kollmeier B. Evidence for the distortion product frequency place as a source of distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) fine structure in humans. I. Fine structure and higher-order DPOAE as a function of the frequency ratio f2/f1.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1999;  106 3473-3483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 He N, Schmiedt R A. Fine structure of the 2f 1-f 2 acoustic distortion product: changes with primary level.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1993;  94 2659-2669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mauermann M, Uppenkamp S, Kollmeier B. Periodizität und Pegelabhängigkeit der spektralen Feinstruktur von Verzerrungsprodukt-Emissionen.  Audiol Akust . 1997;  36 92-104
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 He N, Dubno J R, Schmiedt R A. Frequency fine structures of auditory thresholds and distortion product emissions: is there a correlation?.  Assoc Res Otolaryngol Abstr . 1994;  17 48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Penner M J. Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions and tinnitus. In: Tyler RS, ed. Tinnitus Handbook San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group 2000: 203-220
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Long G. Perceptual consequences of the interactions between spontaneous otoacoustic emissions and external tones. I. Monaural diplacusis and aftertones.  Hear Res . 1998;  119 49-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kemp D T. The evoked cochlear mechanical response and the auditory microstructure-evidence for a new element in cochlear mechanics.  Scand Audiol Suppl . 1979;  9 35-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Long G R. Does intersubject variance in psychoacoustic research stem from cochlear fine structure?. In: Breebaart DJ, Houtsma AJM, Kohlrausch A, Prijs VF, Schoonhoven R, eds. Physiological and Psychophysical Bases of Auditory Function. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Shaker Publishing BV; 2001: 397-402
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Zwicker E. Spontaneous oto-acoustic emissions, threshold in quiet, and just noticeable amplitude modulation at low levels. In: Moore BCJ, Patterson RD, eds. Auditory Frequency Selectivity London: Plenum 1986: 49-59
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Long G R. Perceptual consequences of otoacoustic emissions. In: Schick A, ed. Contributions to Psychological Acoustics: Results of the Sixth Oldenburg Symposium on Psychological Acoustics Oldenburg, Germany: University of Oldenburg Press 1993: 59-79
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Long G R. The microstructure of quiet and masked thresholds.  Hear Res . 1984;  15 73-87
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Norena A, Micheyl C, Durrant J D, Chéry-Croze S, Collet L. Is there a neural plasticity related to spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in humans?.  Assoc Res Otolaryngol Abstr 24;. 2001;  11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Köhler W, Fritze W. Pitch is influenced by spontaneous otoacoustic emissions.  Acta Otolaryngol . 1994;  114 110-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Zwicker E, Harris F P. Psychoacoustical and ear canal cancellation of (2f 1-f 2)-distortion products.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1990;  87 2583-2591
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Furst M, Rabinowitz W M, Zurek P M. Ear canal acoustic distortion at 2f 1-f 2 from human ears: relation to other emissions and perceived combination tones.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1988;  84 215-221
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Brown A M, Harris F P, Beveridge H A. Two sources of acoustic distortion products from the human cochlea.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1996;  100 3260-3267
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Brown A M, Gaskill S A, Carlyon R P, Williams D M. Acoustic distortion as a measure of frequency selectivity: relation to psychophysical equivalent rectangular bandwidth.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1993;  93 3291-3307
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Leeuw A R, Dreschler W A. The relation between otoacoustic emissions and the broadening of the auditory filter for higher levels.  Hear Res . 1998;  126 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Neumann J, Uppenkamp S, Kollmeier B. Relations between notched-noise suppressed TEOAE and the psychoacoustical critical bandwidth.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1997;  101 2778-2788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 McFadden D, Mishra R. On the relation between hearing sensitivity and otoacoustic emissions.  Hear Res . 1993;  71 208-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kapadia S, Lutman M E. Reduced `audiogram ripple' in normally-hearing subjects with weak otoacoustic emissions.  Audiology . 1999;  38 257-261
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Probst R, Harris F P. Effect of otoacoustic emissions on just-noticeable differences for intensity in normally hearing subjects.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1996;  100 504-510
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Micheyl C, Collet L. Interrelations between psychoacoustical tuning curves and spontaneous and evoked otoacoustic emissions.  Scand Audiol . 1994;  23 171-178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Smurzynski J, Probst R. Detection of partially filled and empty temporal gaps in low-pass noise in subjects with and without spontaneous otoacoustic emissions. In: Wada H, Takasaka T, Ikeda K, Ohyama K, Koike T, eds. Recent Developments in Auditory Mechanics Singapore: World Scientific 2000: 463-469
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Quaranta A, Portalatini P, Henderson D. Temporary and permanent threshold shift: an overview.  Scand Audiol . 1998 (Suppl 48);  27 75-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Cazals Y. Auditory sensori-neural alterations induced by salicylate.  Prog Neurobiol . 2000;  62 583-631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Whitehead M L. Slow variations of the amplitude and frequency of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions.  Hear Res . 1991;  53 269-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Smurzynski J, Probst R. The influence of disappearing and reappearing spontaneous otoacoustic emissions on one subject's threshold microstructure.  Hear Res . 1998;  115 197-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
      >