Comparison of Behavioral and Physiological Measures of the Status of the Cochlear Nonlinearity.
notched-noise test
otoacoustic emissions
peripheral compression
temporal-masking curve test
Journal
Trends in hearing
ISSN: 2331-2165
Titre abrégé: Trends Hear
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101635698
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
27
5
2021
pubmed:
28
5
2021
medline:
6
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
While an audiogram is a useful method of characterizing hearing loss, it has been suggested that including a complementary, suprathreshold measure, for example, a measure of the status of the cochlear active mechanism, could lead to improved diagnostics and improved hearing-aid fitting in individual listeners. While several behavioral and physiological methods have been proposed to measure the cochlear-nonlinearity characteristics, evidence of a good correspondence between them is lacking, at least in the case of hearing-impaired listeners. If this lack of correspondence is due to, for example, limited reliability of one of such measures, it might be a reason for limited evidence of the benefit of measuring peripheral compression. The aim of this study was to investigate the relation between measures of the peripheral-nonlinearity status estimated using two psychoacoustical methods (based on the notched-noise and temporal-masking curve methods) and otoacoustic emissions, on a large sample of hearing-impaired listeners. While the relation between the estimates from the notched-noise and the otoacoustic emissions experiments was found to be stronger than predicted by the audiogram alone, the relations between the two measures and the temporal-masking based measure did not show the same pattern, that is, the variance shared by any of the two measures with the temporal-masking curve-based measure was also shared with the audiogram.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34041986
doi: 10.1177/23312165211016155
pmc: PMC8165530
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
23312165211016155Références
J Neurosci. 1991 Apr;11(4):1057-67
pubmed: 2010805
J Acoust Soc Am. 1982 Dec;72(6):1788-803
pubmed: 7153426
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 29;12(3):e0174776
pubmed: 28355275
J Acoust Soc Am. 2002 Oct;112(4):1597-604
pubmed: 12398465
J Acoust Soc Am. 1993 Nov;94(5):2639-48
pubmed: 8270740
J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Jun;115(6):3081-91
pubmed: 15237833
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 May;117(5):3028-41
pubmed: 15957772
J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Jun;127(6):3602-13
pubmed: 20550260
J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Nov;106(5):2761-78
pubmed: 10573892
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Jan;125(1):270-81
pubmed: 19173414
Trends Amplif. 2010 Jun;14(2):113-20
pubmed: 20724358
Trends Hear. 2016 Sep 07;20:
pubmed: 27604779
J Acoust Soc Am. 1976 Mar;59(3):640-54
pubmed: 1254791
Hear Res. 2011 Oct;280(1-2):177-91
pubmed: 21669269
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2012 Aug;13(4):485-504
pubmed: 22526735
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Aug;126(2):728-38
pubmed: 19640039
Trends Hear. 2017 Jan-Dec;21:2331216517730526
pubmed: 28929903
Ear Hear. 2007 Dec;28(6):778-92
pubmed: 17982366
J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Oct;110(4):2045-64
pubmed: 11681384
J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Jan;129(1):262-81
pubmed: 21303008
J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Apr;115(4):1684-95
pubmed: 15101647
Hear Res. 1994 Mar;73(2):231-43
pubmed: 8188552
J Am Acad Audiol. 2004 Sep;15(8):566-73
pubmed: 15553656
J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Jun;101(6):3666-75
pubmed: 9193054
J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Oct;124(4):2149-63
pubmed: 19062855