Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
CLINICALLY RELEVANT LONG-TERM RELIABILITY
OF CONTRALATERAL SUPPRESSION OF CLICK-EVOKED OTOACOUSTIC EMISSIONS
1
LICAMM, University of Leeds, Leeds, U.K.
2
Department of Audiology, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, U.K.
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Publication date: 2017-06-30
Corresponding author
Edward C. Killan
Edward C. Killan, LICAMM, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, U.K., LS2 9UT, e-mail: e.killan@leeds.ac.uk
Edward C. Killan, LICAMM, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, U.K., LS2 9UT, e-mail: e.killan@leeds.ac.uk
J Hear Sci 2017;7(2):27-36
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Contralateral suppression of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions (CEOAEs) is a potentially useful clinical tool. Recent studies have provided descriptions of the reliability of this measure. In terms of their clinical relevance, the studies were limited as they utilised custom-built measurement systems or were conducted by a single tester over a short time. Further, previous studies generally reported only group data. The present study addresses these limitations by reporting individual and group data collected by two testers, using standard clinical equipment over longer time-frames.
Material and Methods:
Contralateral suppression of CEOAEs was recorded from 12 ears using the ILO 292 system. Clicks and contralateral broadband noise (BBN) were presented at 60 dB p.e. SPL and 65 dB SPL respectively. Global and best half-octave band suppression values (in dB) were measured on four separate occasions by two testers spanning an average period of 35.5 days. Reliability was assessed via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEm). Multilevel regression analysis was used to explore potential causes of variation in suppression.
Results:
Global suppression reliability was shown to be worse than previous reports, with only fair to good reliability observed. ICC and SEm values were 0.57 and 0.47 dB respectively. Corresponding values for best half-octave band suppression were 0.49 and 0.64 dB. Further analysis revealed no significant effect on contralateral suppression for a range of variables tested. Substantial variation (up to 2 dB) in contralateral suppression between test sessions was seen for individual subjects.
Conclusions:
Findings suggest that contralateral suppression of CEOAEs, measured by separate testers using standard clinical equipment, is not reliable over long time periods.
Contralateral suppression of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions (CEOAEs) is a potentially useful clinical tool. Recent studies have provided descriptions of the reliability of this measure. In terms of their clinical relevance, the studies were limited as they utilised custom-built measurement systems or were conducted by a single tester over a short time. Further, previous studies generally reported only group data. The present study addresses these limitations by reporting individual and group data collected by two testers, using standard clinical equipment over longer time-frames.
Material and Methods:
Contralateral suppression of CEOAEs was recorded from 12 ears using the ILO 292 system. Clicks and contralateral broadband noise (BBN) were presented at 60 dB p.e. SPL and 65 dB SPL respectively. Global and best half-octave band suppression values (in dB) were measured on four separate occasions by two testers spanning an average period of 35.5 days. Reliability was assessed via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the standard error of measurement (SEm). Multilevel regression analysis was used to explore potential causes of variation in suppression.
Results:
Global suppression reliability was shown to be worse than previous reports, with only fair to good reliability observed. ICC and SEm values were 0.57 and 0.47 dB respectively. Corresponding values for best half-octave band suppression were 0.49 and 0.64 dB. Further analysis revealed no significant effect on contralateral suppression for a range of variables tested. Substantial variation (up to 2 dB) in contralateral suppression between test sessions was seen for individual subjects.
Conclusions:
Findings suggest that contralateral suppression of CEOAEs, measured by separate testers using standard clinical equipment, is not reliable over long time periods.
REFERENCES (49)
1.
Kapadia S, Lutman ME. Are normal hearing thresholds a sufficient condition for click-evoked otoacoustic emissions? J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 101(6): 3566–76.
3.
Robinette MS, Glattke TJ. Otoacoustic Emissions: Clinical applications. 2002, New York: Thieme.
4.
Collet L, Kemp DT, Veuillet E, Duclaux R, Moulin A, Morgon A. Effect of contralateral auditory stimuli on active cochlear micro-mechanical properties in human subjects. Hear Res, 1990; 43(2): 251–61.
5.
Hood LJ, Berlin CI, Hurley A, Cecola RP, Bell B. Contralateral suppression of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in humans: Intensity effects. Hear Res, 1996; 101(1-2): 113–18.
6.
Veuillet E, Collet L, Duclaux R. Effect of contralateral acoustic stimulation on active cochlear micromechanical properties in human subjects: Dependence on stimulus variables. J Neurophysiol, 1991; 65(3): 724–35.
7.
Arnesen AR. Fibre population of the vestibulocochlear anastomosis in humans. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 1984; 98(5–6): 501–18.
8.
Elgoyhen AB, Katz E. The efferent medial olivocochlear-hair cell synapse. J Physiol, 2012; 106(1–2): 47–56.
9.
Guinan JJ. Olivocochlear efferents: Anatomy, physiology, function, and the measurement of efferent effects in humans. Ear Hear, 2006; 27(6): 589–607.
10.
Moore JK, Simmons DD, Guan Y. The human olivocochlear system: Organization and development. Audiol Neurootol, 1999; 4(6): 311–25.
11.
De Boer J, Thornton AR, Krumbholz K. What is the role of the medial olivocochlear system in speech-in-noise processing? J Neurophysiol, 2012; 107(5): 1301–12.
12.
Garinis A, Werner L, Abdala C. The relationship between MOC reflex and masked threshold. Hear Res, 2011; 282(1–2): 128–37.
13.
De Boer J, Thornton ARD. Neural correlates of perceptual learning in the auditory brainstem: Efferent activity predicts and reflects improvement at a speech-in-noise discrimination task. J Neurosci, 2008; 28(19): 4929–37.
14.
Veuillet E, Magnan A, Ecalle J, Thai-Van H, Collet L. Auditory processing disorder in children with reading disabilities: Effect of audiovisual training. Brain, 2007; 130(11): 2915-28.
15.
Maison S, Micheyl C, Collet L. Influence of focused auditory attention on cochlear activity in humans. Psychophysiology, 2001; 38(1): 35–40.
16.
Giard MH, Collet L, Bouchet P, Pernier J. Auditory selective attention in the human cochlea. Brain Res, 1994; 633(1–2): 353–56.
17.
Giard MH, Fort A, Mouchetant-Rostaing Y, Pernier J. Neurophysiological mechanisms of auditory selective attention in humans. Front Biosci, 2000; 5: D84–94.
18.
Rajan R. Centrifugal pathways protect hearing sensitivity at the cochlea in noisy environments that exacerbate the damage induced by loud sound. J Neurosci, 2000; 20(17): 6684–93.
19.
Starr A, Picton TW, Sininger Y, Hood LJ, Berlin CI. Auditory neuropathy. Brain, 1996; 119(3): 741–53.
20.
Muchnik C, Ari-Even Roth D, Othman-Jebara R, Putter-Katz H, Shabtai EL, Hildesheimer M. Reduced medial olivocochlear bundle system function in children with auditory processing disorders. Audiol Neurootol, 2004; 9(2): 107–14.
21.
Ceranic BJ, Prasher DK, Raglan E, Luxon LM. Tinnitus after head injury: evidence from otoacoustic emissions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 1998; 65(4): 523–29.
22.
Khalfa S1, Bruneau N, Rogé B, Georgieff N, Veuillet E, Adrien JL et al. Peripheral auditory asymmetry in infantile autism. Eur J Neurosci, 2001; 13(3): 628–32.
23.
Garinis AC, Glattke T, Cone-Wesson BK. TEOAE suppression in adults with learning disabilities. Int J Audiol, 2008; 47(10): 607–14.
24.
Nolle C, Todt I, Seidl RO, Ernst A. Pathophysiological changes of the central auditory pathway after blunt trauma of the head. J Neurotraum, 2004; 21(3): 251–58.
25.
Micarelli A, Viziano A, Genovesi G, Bruno E, Ottaviani F, Alessandrini M. Lack of contralateral suppression in transientevoked otoacoustic emissions in multiple chemical sensitivity: A clinical correlation study. Noise Health, 2016; 18(82): 143–49.
26.
Marshall L, Lapsley Miller JA, Guinan JJ, Shera CA, Reed CM et al. Otoacoustic-emission-based medial-olivocochlear reflex assays for humans. J Acoust Soc Am, 2014; 136(5): 2697–713.
27.
Guinan JJ, Backus BC, Lilaonitkul W, Aharonson V. Medial olivocochlear efferent reflex in humans: Otoacoustic emission (OAE) measurement issues and the advantages of stimulus frequency OAEs. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2003; 4(4): 521–40.
28.
Mertes IB, Goodman SS. Within- and across-subject variability of repeated measurements of medial olivocochlear-induced changes in transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear, 2016; 37(2): e72–e84.
29.
Mishra SK, Lutman ME. Repeatability of click-evoked otoacoustic emission-based medial olivocochlear efferent assay. Ear Hear, 2013; 34(6): 789–98.
30.
Graham RL, Hazell JWP. Contralateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions: Intra-individual variability in tinnitus and normal subjects. Br J Audiol, 1994; 28(4- 5): 235–45.
31.
Stuart A, Cobb KM. Reliability of measures of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions with contralateral suppression. J Commun Disord, 2015; 58: 35–42.
32.
Jedrzejczak WW, Pilka E, Olszewski L, Skarzynski H. Shortterm repeatability of contralateral suppression of transiently evoked otoaocutsic emissions: Preliminary results. J Hear Sci, 2016; 6(2): 51–57.
33.
Guinan JJ. Olivocochlear efferent function: Issues regarding methods and the interpretation of results. Frontiers Systems Neurosci, 2014; 8: 142.
34.
Bonfils P, Piron JP, Uziel A, Pujol R. A correlative study of evoked otoacoustic emission properties and audiometric thresholds. Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 1988; 245(1): 53–56.
35.
Probst R, Coats AC, Martin GK, Lonsbury-Martin BL. Spontaneous, click-, and toneburst-evoked otoacoustic emissions from normal ears. Hear Res, 1986; 21(3): 261–75.
36.
de Boer J, Thornton ARD. Effect of subject task on contralateral suppression of click evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res, 2007; 233(1): 117–23.
37.
Harkrider AW, Bowers CD. Evidence for a cortically mediated release from inhibition in the human cochlea. J Am Acad Audiol, 2009; 20(3): 208–15.
38.
Goldstein H. Multilevel Statistical Models. 2011, Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.
39.
Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. Multilevel Analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. 1999, London: SAGE.
40.
de Ceulaer G, Yperman M, Daemers K et al. Contralateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions: Normative data for a clinical test set-up. Oto Neurotol, 2001; 22(3): 350–55.
41.
Keppler H, Dhooge I, Maes L, D’haenens W, Bockstael A, Philips B et al. Transient-evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions: A short-term test–retest reliability study. Int J Audiol, 2010; 49(2): 99–109.
42.
Kochanek KM, Sliwa LK, Puchacz K, Pilka A. Repeatability of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in young adults. Med Sci Monit, 2015; 21: 36–43.
43.
Baradarnfar MH, Karamifar K, Mehrparvar AH, Mollasadeghi A, Gharavi M, Karimi G et al. Amplitude changes in otoacoustic emissions after exposure to industrial noise. Noise Health, 2012; 14(56): 28–31.
44.
Kotylo M, Sliwinska-Kowalska P. Occupational exposure to noise decreases otoacoustic emission efferent suppression. Int J Audiol, 2002; 41(2): 113–19.
45.
Sliwinska-Kowalska P, Kotylo M. Otoacoustic emissions in industrial hearing loss assessment. Noise Health, 2001; 3(12): 75–84.
46.
McFadden D, Pasanen EG. Otoacoustic emissions and quinine sulfate. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 95(6): 3460–74.
47.
Ueda H, Yamamoto Y, Yanagita N. Effect of aspirin on transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions in guinea pigs. ORL, 1996; 58(2): 61–67.
48.
Gelfand SA, Piper N. Acoustic reflex thresholds in young and elderly subjects with normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 1981; 69(1): 295–97.
49.
Boothalingam S, Purcell DW. Influence of the stimulus presentation rate on medial olivocochlear system assays. J Acoust Soc Am, 2015; 137(2): 724–32.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
