Standardization of the TEOAE Contralateral Suppression Test in Terms of Stimulus Intensity and Contralateral Noise Duration in Individuals with Normal Hearing

Abstract

Background A standard method and parameter study were performed for the contralateral suppression test.

Purpose Our study aimed to determine the contralateral transient-evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) suppression test method and stimulus–noise parameters that have a standard procedure and will enable the efferent system to be easily evaluated in clinics.

Research Design: This study was conducted in two parts with two different groups of participants as a within-subjects design. In the first part, the signal-to-noise ratio at which maximum suppression obtained was investigated with 29 participants. In the second part, the optimal contralateral noise presentation method (in terms of noise-time or noise-sweep) was examined with 21 participants.

Study Sample In the first part 29 young adults aged between 18 and 32 (23.03 ± 2.84), 20 females and 9 males, and in the second part 21 young adults aged between 19 and 34 years (mean age: 23.71 ± 3.48 years), 16 females and 5 males, participated in the second part. All participants had normal hearing.

Data Collection and Analysis To obtain maximum OAE suppression, different parameters were tested with the Otodynamics ILO292-II OAE device at both parts of the study in a double-walled audiometric test booths. Multirepeated analysis of variance, pairwise comparison, Friedman test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results In the first part, maximum suppression was achieved at 65 dB peSPL (decibel peak-equivalent sound pressure level) TEOAE stimulus and 65 dB SPL broadband noise. In the second part, maximum suppression was obtained in noise-time method with 30 seconds “duration.”

Conclusions To provide standardization in clinics, it can be recommended that the contralateral suppression of OAEs was measured at 65 dB peSPL TEOAE stimulus and 65 dB SPL broadband noise in the linear stimulation mode with Otodynamics ILO 292-II double-probe OAE device. To obtain maximum suppression, the noise-time method with 30 seconds duration can be used.

Keywords

contralateral suppression parameters - efferent system - otoacoustic emission - contralateral suppression

• References

• 1 Ciuman RR. The efferent system or olivocochlear function bundle - fine regulator and protector of hearing perception. Int J Biomed Sci 2010; 6 (04) 276-288
• 2 Warr WB, Guinan Jr JJ. Efferent innervation of the organ of corti: two separate systems. Brain Res 1979; 173 (01) 152-155
• 3 Moore JK. Organization of the human superior olivary complex. Microsc Res Tech 2000; 51 (04) 403-412
• 4 Keppler H, Dhooge I, Maes L. et al. Evaluation of the olivocochlear efferent reflex strength in the susceptibility to temporary hearing deterioration after music exposure in young adults. Noise Health 2014; 16 (69) 108-115
• 5 De Ceulaer G, Yperman M, Daemers K. et al. Contralateral suppression of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions: normative data for a clinical test set-up. Otology &neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society. [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology 2001; 22 (03) 350-355
• 6 Lichtenhan JT, Wilson US, Hancock KE, Guinan Jr JJ. Medial olivocochlear efferent reflex inhibition of human cochlear nerve responses. Hear Res 2016; 333: 216-224
• 7 Karunarathne B, Wang T, So RHY, Kam ACS, Meddis R. Adversarial relationship between combined medial olivocochlear (MOC) and middle-ear-muscle (MEM) reflexes and alarm-in-noise detection thresholds under negative signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Hear Res 2018; 367: 124-128
• 8 Mertes IB, Wilbanks EC, Leek MR. Olivocochlear efferent activity is associated with the slope of the psychometric function of speech recognition in noise. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (03) 583-593
• 9 Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007; 39 (02) 175-191
• 10 Joseph J, Suman A, Jayasree GK, Prabhu P. Evaluation of contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions in Bharatanatyam dancers and non-dancers. J Int Adv Otol 2019; 15 (01) 118-120
• 11 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): 113-118
• 12 Jedrzejczak WW, Pilka E, Skarzynski PH, Skarzynski H. Reliability of contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions in children. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (06) 438-445
• 13 Giraud AL, Collet L, Chéry-Croze S. Suppression of otoacoustic emission is unchanged after several minutes of contralateral acoustic stimulation. Hear Res 1997; 109 (1-2): 78-82
• 14 Liberman MC, Brown MC. Physiology and anatomy of single olivocochlear neurons in the cat. Hear Res 1986; 24 (01) 17-36
• 15 Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Cecola RP, Jackson DF, Szabo P. Does type I afferent neuron dysfunction reveal itself through lack of efferent suppression?. Hear Res 1993; 65 (1-2): 40-50
• 16 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 (2-3): 251-261
• 17 Perrot X, Collet L. Function and plasticity of the medial olivocochlear system in musicians: a review. Hear Res 2014; 308: 27-40
• 18 Stuart A, Kerls AN. Does contralateral inhibition of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions suggest sex or ear laterality effects?. Am J Audiol 2018; 27 (03) 272-282