|
Isolation Ward From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks. |
|
|
|
Isolation Ward From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks. |
|
In Reply to: LOL! You must be right. Everything else can vary about us, but not how we perceive sound. posted by Enophile on October 30, 2008 at 10:05:47:
J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Aug;124(2):1054-67.
Sources of variability in distortion product otoacoustic emissions.Garner CA, Neely ST, Gorga MP.
The Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, The University of Nebraska, 301 Barkley, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583, USA. cassie.garner@ttuhsc.edu
The goal of this study was to determine the extent to which the variability seen in distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), among ears with normal hearing, could be accounted for. Several factors were selected for investigation, including behavioral threshold, differences in middle-ear transmission characteristics either in the forward or the reverse direction, and differences in contributions from the distortion and reflection sources. These variables were assessed after optimizing stimulus parameters for individual ears at each frequency. A multiple-linear regression was performed to identify whether the selected variables, either individually or in combination, explained significant portions of variability in DPOAE responses. Behavioral threshold at the f(2) frequency and behavioral threshold squared at that same frequency explained the largest amount of variability in DPOAE level, compared to the other variables. The combined model explained a small, but significant, amount of variance in DPOAE level at five frequencies. A large amount of residual variability remained, even at frequencies where the model accounted for significant amounts of variance.
_
Medications, hydration status, middle ear pressures, eustachian tube function, and alcohol are also well decsribed in terms of altering sonic perception.
__
Another reference:
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Oct 24. [Epub ahead of print]
Test-Retest Reliability Of Low-Level Evoked Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions.Stuart A, Passmore AL, Culbertson DS, Jones SM.
East Carolina University.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine test-retest reliability of low-level evoked distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) as a function of L(1), L(2) level, f(2) frequency, and test condition. A predictive relationship between these variables and the presence/absence of DPOAE responses was also examined. METHOD: Sixteen normal-hearing young adults participated. DPOAEs were evoked to 12 tones with f(2) frequencies ranging from 1500-7546 Hz at four L(2) levels between 45 and 30 dB SPL. Four test conditions were employed: (a) initial test, (b) retest without probe removal, (c) retest with probe reinsertion, and (d) retest with probe reinsertion by a second tester. RESULTS: L(1), L(2) level and f(2) frequency were statistically significant (p < .0001) predictors of a DPOAE response (i.e., the presence of a DPOAE response was more likely to be observed at higher L(1), L(2) levels and lower f(2) frequencies regardless of test condition). DPOAE levels were significantly affected by L(1), L(2) level and f(2) frequency (p < .0001) but not test condition. Intra- and inter-tester test-retest differences were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of missing responses coupled with large inter-subject variability and intra-subject test-retest variability are a detriment to the clinical utility of DPOAEs evoked with low-level stimuli.
Gasp! "Intrasubject test-retest variability!"
Fudge, I guess people's auditory processing does vary.
;)
Cheers!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Here's some more auditory data... - Enophile 10:19:00 10/30/08 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
