OBJECTIVE: We investigated and compared the usefulness of the electrocochleography and distortion product otoacoustic emission tests for detecting the earliest noise-induced damage by analyzing the sensitivity and specificity of the 2 tests.
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study.
METHODS: After listening to music at 90.3 ± 4.2 dB in the same night-club for 2 hours continuously, 23 healthy normal ears experienced a temporary threshold shift exceeding 5 dB. Pure-tone audiometry, the distortion product otoacoustic emission test, and electrocochleography were performed before, immediately after, and 24 hours after the exposure.
RESULTS: Before exposure, the measured distortion product/noise floor was 9.8 ± 10.4, 23.5 ± 6.4, 18.7 ± 6.4, and 19.1 ± 5.6 dB sound pressure level (SPL) at frequencies of 1, 2, 3, and 4 kHz, respectively. Immediately after exposure, it decreased significantly at 2, 3, and 4 kHz to 16.6 ± 7.6, 12.5 ± 6.8, and 14.8 ± 7.7 dB SPL, respectively. Marked increases in the amplitude of the summating potential and summating potential/action potential ratio were recorded from 0.15 ± 0.06 to 0.32 ± 0.11 and 0.23 ± 0.06 to 0.44 ± 0.08, respectively. The respective sensitivity and specificity of electrocochleography were 76.7% to 88.5% and 91.0% to 100%. Those of the distortion product otoacoustic emission test were 54.8% to 62.2% and 75.5% to 87.0%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Electrocochleography appears to provide more sensitive and specific information than the distortion product otoacoustic emission test for detecting a noise-induced temporary threshold shift.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
NamECWonJY. Extratympanic electrocochleographic changes on noise-induced temporary threshold shift. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2004; 130(4):437–42. (Grade B).
2.
AttiasJBresloffIReshefIEvaluating noise induced hearing loss with distortion product otoacoustic emission. Br J Audio1998; 32: 39–46. (Grade B).
3.
CanlonBMarklundKBorgE.Measures of auditory brain-stem responses, distortion product otoacoustic emissions, hair cell loss, and forward masked tuning curves in the waltzing guinea pig. Am J Acoust Sco1993; 94: 3232–43. (Grade B).
4.
MusiekFEBaranJA. Distortion product otoacoustic emission: Hit and false-positive rates in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Am J Otology1997; 18: 454–61. (Grade B).
5.
JangYJChungPSHwangEJMonitoring by ABR, TEOAE and DPOAE of noise-induced hearing loss in guinea pig. Korean J Otolaryngol1999; 42: 1089–92. (Grade B).
6.
EmmerichERichterFReinholdUEffects of industrial noise exposure on distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAESs) and hair cell loss of the cochlea-long term experiments in awake guinea pigs. Hear Res2000; 148: 9–17. (Grade B).
7.
Lonsbury-MartinBLWhiteheadMLMartinGK. Distortion-product otoacoustic emission in normal and impaired ears: Insight into generation processes. Prog Brain Res1993; 97: 77–90. (Grade B).
8.
VinckBMvan CauwenbergePBLeroyLSensitivity of transient evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions to the direct effects of noise on the human Cochlea. Audiology1999; 38(1):44–9. (Grade B).
