Download PDF
Semin Hear 2001; 22(4): 393-404
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-19112
Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Monitoring the Effects of Noise with Otoacoustic Emissions

Judi A. Lapsley Miller, Lynne Marshall
  • Hearing Conservation Team, Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, Groton, Connecticut
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 December 2001 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

There are not enough documented cases of permanent hearing loss in which both hearing and evoked otoacoustic emissions have been followed in individuals over time to allow generalizations of how noise exposure affects emissions relative to hearing thresholds. Early results from longitudinal studies show some interesting case studies in which the emissions confirm and extend audiometric results. To collect valid, reliable, long-term data on noise-exposed people, a number of factors must be considered. These factors include (1) choice of stimulus; (2) measurement of the emission, including analyzing bandwidth, absolute or relative emission level, unmeasurable emissions, and noise floor issues; (3) probe fit and ensuring a good stimulus waveform and spectrum; and (4) middle-ear pressure. Emissions can be used in a clinical setting if the test-retest reliability is established for the protocol, equipment, testers, and clinical population of interest. This allows identification of abnormal emission shifts, but interpretation and implications at this stage are limited.

KEYWORD

Evoked otoacoustic emissions - noise-induced hearing loss - permanent threshold shift - significant emission shift - temporary threshold shift

REFERENCES

  • 1 Nordmann A S, Bohne B A, Harding G W. Histopathological differences between temporary and permanent threshold shift.  Hear Res . 2000;  139 13-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Davis R I, Ahroon W A, Hamernik R P. The relation among hearing loss, sensory cell loss and tuning characteristics in the chinchilla.  Hear Res . 1989;  41 1-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Probst R, Lonsbury-Martin B L, Martin G K. A review of otoacoustic emissions.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1991;  89 2027-2067
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Liberman M C, Dodds L W, Learson D A. Structure-function correlation in noise-damaged ears: a light and electron-microscopic study. In: Salvi RJ, Henderson D, Hamernik RP, Colletti V, eds. Basic and Applied Aspects of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss New York: Plenum 1986: 163-177
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Attias J, Bresloff I, Reshef I, Horowitz G, Furman V. Evaluating noise induced hearing loss with distortion product otoacoustic emissions.  Br J Audiol . 1998;  32 39-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sliwinska-Kowalska M. The role of evoked and distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in diagnosis of occupational noise-induced hearing loss.  J Audiol Med . 1998;  7 29-45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 LePage E L, Murray N M. Latent cochlear damage in personal stereo users: a study based on click-evoked otoacoustic emissions.  Med J Aust . 1998;  169 588-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mansfield J D, Baghurst P A, Newton V E. Otoacoustic emissions in 28 young adults exposed to amplified music.  Br J Audiol . 1999;  33 211-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sliwinska-Kowalska M. Industrial hearing loss monitored by otoacoustic emissions. Paper presented at Noise Pollution Health Effects Reduction (NOPHER) 2000 International Symposium on Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, Cambridge, England, 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Marshall L, Heller L M, Westhusin L J, Lapsley Miller A J. TEOAE/DPOAE changes associated with developing NIHL.  Assoc Res Otolaryngol Abstr . 2000;  66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Marshall L, Lapsley Miller A J, Heller L M. Distortion-product otoacoustic emissions as a screening tool for noise-induced hearing loss. Paper presented at Noise Pollution Health Effects Reduction (NOPHER) 2000 International Symposium on Noise-Induced Hearing Loss, Cambridge, England, 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Lapsley Miller A J, Marshall L. Hearing conservation programs of the future: what role will otoacoustic emissions play?.  Spectrum . 2001;  18(1) 1-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kapadia S, Lutman M E. Are normal hearing thresholds a sufficient condition for click-evoked otoacoustic emissions?.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1997;  101 3566-3567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Avan P, Bonfils P, Loth D. Effects of acoustic overstimulation on distortion-product and transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. In: Axelsson A, Hellstrom PA, Borchgrevink H, Henderson D, Hamernik RP, Salvi R, eds. Scientific Basis of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss Stuttgart: George Thieme Verlag 1996: 65-81
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Marshall L, Heller L M, Lentz B. Distortion-product emissions accompanying TTS.  Assoc Res Otolaryngol Abstr . 1998;  150
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Marshall L, Heller L M. Transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions as a measure of noise-induced threshold shift.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1998;  41 1319-1334
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Liebel J, Delb W, Andes C, Koch A. Die Erfassung von Lärmschäden bei Besuchern einer Diskothek mit Hilfe der TEOAE und DPOAE.  Laryngorhinootologie . 1996;  75 259-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vinck B M, Van Cauwenberge B P, Leroy L, Corthals P. Sensitivity of transient evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions to the direct effects of noise on the human cochlea.  Audiology . 1999;  38 44-52
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Avan P, Elbez M, Bonfils P. Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions and the influence of high-frequency hearing losses in humans.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1997;  101 2771-2777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Shera C A, Guinan Jr 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
  • 21 Engdahl B, Kemp D T. The effect of noise exposure on the details of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in humans.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1996;  99 1573-1587
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Talmadge C L, Long G R, Tubis A, Dhar S. Experimental confirmation of the two-source interference model for the fine structure of distortion product otoacoustic emissions.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1999;  105 275-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Knight R D, Kemp D T. Indications of different distortion product otoacoustic emission mechanisms from a detailed f1,f2 area study.  J Acoust Soc Am . 2000;  107 457-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Marshall L, Heller L M. Reliability of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions.  Ear Hear . 1996;  17 237-254
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kemp D T, Ryan S, Bray P. A guide to the effective use of otoacoustic emissions.  Ear Hear . 1990;  11 93-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Marshall L, Heller L M, Westhusin L J. Effect of negative middle-ear pressure on transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions.  Ear Hear . 1997;  18 218-226
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Naeve S L, Margolis R H, Levine S C, Fournier E M. Effect of ear-canal air pressure on evoked otoacoustic emissions.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1992;  91 2091-2095
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ghiselli E E. Theory of Psychological Measurement.  New York: McGraw-Hill; 1964
    Google Scholar