ArticleEar and hearing
Cochlear Mechanisms and Otoacoustic Emission Test Performance.
Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is Macular Telangiectasia Type 2 Associated with Hearing Loss and Cochlear Dysfunction? A Prospective Case-Control Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Detection of mild sensory hearing loss using a joint reflection-distortion otoacoustic emission profile.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Assessment of Hearing Screening Combined With Limited and Expanded Genetic Screening for Newborns in Nantong, China.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Article
- Objective Assessment System for Hearing Prediction Based on Stimulus-Frequency Otoacoustic Emissions.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to determine the impact of controlling cochlear-source mechanism on the accuracy with which auditory status is identified using otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) in two groups of subjects with normal hearing (NH) and subjects with mild to moderate hearing loss.
designData were collected from 212 subjects with NH and with mild to moderate hearing loss who fell into two categories based on a distortion product OAE (DPOAE) screening protocol: the uncertain-identification group (where errors were likely) and the certain-identification group (where errors were unlikely). DPOAE fine-structure patterns were recorded at intervals surrounding f2 = 1, 2 and 4 kHz (f2/f1 ratio = 1.22), with L2 = 35, 45, and 55 dB SPL (L1/L2 ratio = 10 dB). The discrete cosine transform was used to smooth fine structure, limiting the source contribution to the distortion source only. Reflection-source OAEs were also recorded using amplitude-modulated stimulus frequency OAEs (AM-SFOAE). Area under the relative operating characteristic (AROC) curve was used to quantify test accuracy when the source contribution was controlled versus the condition where both sources contribute. Additionally, failure rate, fixed at 5% for NH ears, as a function of behavioral-threshold category was evaluated.
resultsWhen data for the entire subject group were examined, reducing the reflection-source contribution to the DPOAE did not result in better test performance than the best control condition at any frequency tested. When the subjects with NH were restricted to those with confirmed fine structure, AROC analyses indicated that reducing the reflection-source contribution resulted in several small increases in the accuracy (2%-5%) with which auditory status was identified relative to the best control condition. This improvement was observed for the lowest stimulus levels (i.e., L2 = 35 or 45 dB SPL). In this subset of subjects, distortion-source DPOAEs resulted in more accurate identification of mild hearing loss for a fixed false-positive rate of 5% in NH ears at lower L2's, conditions with poor accuracy in the larger group of subjects. The impact of controlling the source contribution on the identification of moderate losses was less clear in the reduced subject group, with some conditions where the distortion-source DPOAE was more accurate than the control condition and other conditions where there was no change. There was no evidence that reflection-source AM-SFOAEs more accurately identified ears with hearing loss when compared to any of the DPOAE conditions in either the large or reduced group of subjects.
conclusionWhile improvements in test accuracy were observed for some subjects and some conditions (e.g., mild hearing losses and low stimulus levels in the reduced subset of subjects), these results suggest that restricting cochlear source contribution by "smoothing" DPOAE fine structure is not expected to improve DPOAE test accuracy in a general population of subjects. Likewise, recording reflection-source OAEs using the AM-SFOAE technique would not be expected to more accurately identify hearing status compared to mixed- or single-source DPOAEs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.