A review of otoacoustic emission hearing screening technology

References

• Kemp DT. Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am. 1978; 64: 1386–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Probst R, Lonsbury-Martin BL, Martin GK. A review of otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am. 1991; 89: 2027–67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorga MP, Neely ST, Bergman BM, Beauchaine KL, Kaminski JR, Peters J, et al. A comparison of transient-evoked and distortion product otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993; 94: 2639–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erenberg A, Lemons J, Sia C, Trunkel D, Ziring P. Newborn and infant hearing loss: detection and intervention. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Newborn and Infant Hearing, 1998–1999. Pediatrics. 1999; 103: 527–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McPherson B, Li SF, Shi BX, Tang JL, Wong BY. Neonatal hearing screening: evaluation of tone-burst and click-evoked otoacoustic emission test criteria. Ear Hear. 2006; 27: 256–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olusanya BO, Swanepoel de W, Chapchap MJ, Castillo S, Habib H, Mukari SZ, et al. Progress towards early detection services for infants with hearing loss in developing countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007; 7: 14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp DT, Bray P, Alexander L, Brown AM. Acoustic emission cochleography: practical aspects. Scand Audiol Suppl. 1986; 25: 71–95
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin GK, Ohlms LA, Franklin DJ, Harris FP, Lonsbury-Martin BL. Distortion product emissions in humans. III. Influence of sensorineural hearing loss. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1990; 147: 30–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Prieve BA, Gorga MP, Schmidt A, Neely S, Peters J, Schultes L, et al. Analysis of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993; 93: 3308–19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spektor Z, Leonard G, Kim DO, Jung MD, Smurzynski J. Otoacoustic emissions in normal and hearing-impaired children and normal adults. Laryngoscope. 1991; 101: 965–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonsbury-Martin BL, Whitehead ML, Martin GK. Clinical applications of otoacoustic emissions. J Speech Hear Res. 1991; 34: 964–81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stover L, Gorga MP, Neely ST, Montoya D. Toward optimizing the clinical utility of distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996; 100: 956–67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bess FH, Dodd-Murphy J, Parker RA. Children with minimal sensorineural hearing loss: prevalence, educational performance, and functional status. Ear Hear. 1998; 19: 339–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxon AB, White KR, Vohr BR, Behrens TR. Using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions for neonatal hearing screening. Br J Audiol. 1993; 27: 149–53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton SJ, Gorga MP, Widen JE, Folsom RC, Sininger Y, Cone-Wesson B, et al. Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: evaluation of transient-evoked otoacoustic emission, distortion product otoacoustic emission, and auditory brain stem response test performance. Ear Hear. 2000; 21: 508–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JCIH. Year 2000 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programmes. Pediatrics. 2000;106:798–817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke P, Iqbal M, Mitchell S. A comparison of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions and automated auditory brainstem responses for pre-discharge neonatal hearing screening. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42: 443–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nie WY, Gong LX, Liu YJ, Xiang LL, Lin Q, Qi YS, et al. Hearing screening of 10,501 newborns. Chin Med J. 2003; 83: 274–7
   Google Scholar
• Vohr BR, Oh W, Stewart EJ, Bentkover JD, Gabbard S, Lemons J, et al. Comparison of costs and referral rates of three universal newborn hearing screening protocols. J Pediatr. 2001; 139: 238–44
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnsen MJ, Maxon AB, White KR, Vohr BR. Operating a hospital-based universal newborn hearing screening programme using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Semin Hear. 1993; 14: 46–55
   Google Scholar
• Mencher GT, DeVoe SJ. Universal newborn screening: a dream realized or a nightmare in the making?. Scand Audiol. 2001; 30: 15–21
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White KR, Vohr BR, Behrens TR. Universal newborn screening using transient- evoked otoacoustic emissions: results of the Rhode Island hearing assessment project. Semin Hear. 1993; 14: 18–29
   Google Scholar
• Gorga MP, Preissler K, Simmons J, Walker L, Hoover B. Some issues relevant to establishing a universal newborn hearing screening programme. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001; 12: 101–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gravel JS, White KR, Johnson JL, Widen JE, Vohr BR, James M, et al. A multisite study to examine the efficacy of the otoacoustic emission/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol: recommendations for policy, practice, and research. Am J Audiol. 2005; 14: S217–28
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maxon AB, White KR, Culpepper B, Vohr BR. Maintaining acceptably low referral rates in TEOAE-based newborn hearing screening programmes. J Commun Disord. 1997; 30: 457–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukai N, Shyu J, Driscoll C, Kei J. Effects of body position on transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions: the clinical perspective. Int J Audiol. 2005; 44: 8–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kei J, McPherson B, Smyth V, Latham S, Loscher J. Transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in infants: effects of gender, ear asymmetry and activity status. Audiology. 1997; 36: 61–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newmark M, Merlob P, Bresloff I, Olsha M, Attias J. Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions: inter-aural and gender differences in newborns. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol. 1997; 8: 133–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saitoh Y, Sakoda T, Hazama M, Funakoshi H, Ikeda H, Shibano A, et al. Transient- evoked otoacoustic emissions in newborn infants: effects of ear asymmetry, gender, and age. J Otolaryngol. 2006; 35: 133–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rhoades K, McPherson B, Smyth V, Kei J, Baglioni A. Effects of background noise on click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear. 1998; 19: 450–62
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popelka GR, Karzon RK, Clary RA. Identification of noise sources that influence distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements in human neonates. Ear Hear. 1998; 19: 319–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp DT, Ryan S, Bray P. A guide to the effective use of otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear. 1990; 11: 93–105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp DT. Otoacoustic emissions, their origin in cochlear function, and use. British Medical Bulletin. 2002; 63: 223–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNellis EL, Klein AJ. Pass/fail rates for repeated click-evoked otoacoustic emission and auditory brain stem response screenings in newborns. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997; 116: 431–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vohr BR, White KR, Maxon AB, Johnson MJ. Factors affecting the interpretation of transient-evoked otoacoustic emission results in neonatal hearing screening. Semin Hear. 1993; 14: 57–72
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy CR. Controlled trial of universal neonatal screening for early identification of permanent childhood hearing impairment: coverage, positive predictive value, effect on mothers and incremental yield. Wessex Universal Neonatal Screening Trial Group. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1999; 88: 73–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nie YJ, Qi YS, Zhao XT, Cai ZH, Yang YL, Tao D, et al. Value of otoacoustic emission (OAE) technique in perinatal audiology. Chin Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999; 6: 207–11
   Google Scholar
• Liao H, Wu ZY, Zhou T, Tao ZZ, Shen L, Zhu SQ. Transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in healthy newborns. J Audiol Speech Pathol (Chin) 1997; 5: 184–6
   Google Scholar
• Zhou T, Cao YM, Lei PX. Evoked otoacoustic emissions in different ages of neonates. J Neonatology (Chin) 2004; 19: 10–4
   Google Scholar
• Kok MR, van Zanten GA, Brocaar MP, Wallenburg HC. Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in 1036 ears of healthy newborns. Audiology. 1993; 32: 213–24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Albuquerque W, Kemp DT. The feasibility of hospital-based universal newborn hearing screening in the United Kingdom. Scand Audiol Suppl. 2001; 30: 22–8
   Google Scholar
• de Kleine E, Wit HP, Avan P, van Dijk P. The behaviour of evoked otoacoustic emissions during and after postural changes. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 110: 973–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buki B, Chomicki A, Dordain M, Lemaire JJ, Wit HP, Chazal J, et al. Middle-ear influence on otoacoustic emissions. II. Contributions of posture and intracranial pressure. Hear Res. 2000; 140: 202–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driscoll C, Kei J, Shyu J, Fukai N. The effects of body position on distortion-product otoacoustic emission testing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004; 15: 566–73
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Phillips AJ, Farrell G. The effect of posture on three objective audiological measures. Br J Audiol. 1992; 26: 339–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driscoll C, Kei J, Murdoch B, McPherson B, Smyth V, Latham S, et al. Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in two-month-old infants: a normative study. Audiology. 1999; 38: 181–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Norton SJ. Application of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions to paediatric populations. Ear Hear. 1993; 14: 64–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller P, Kompis M. Evaluation of a noise reduction system for the assessment of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 112: 164–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton SJ, Gorga MP, Widen JE, Vohr BR, Folsom RC, Sininger YS, et al. Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions during the perinatal period. Ear Hear. 2000; 21: 425–42
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arlinger S. Technical aspects on stimulation, recording and signal-processing. Scand Audiol Suppl. 1981; 13: 41–53
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baer JE, Hall JW. Effects of non-pathological factors on otoacoustic emissions. Hearing J. 1992; 45: 17–23
   Google Scholar
• Welch D, Greville KA, Thorne PR, Purdy SC. Influence of acquisition parameters on the measurement of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in neonates in a hospital environment. Audiology. 1996; 35: 143–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray P, Kemp D. An advanced cochlear echo technique suitable for infant screening. Br J Audiol. 1987; 21: 191–204
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hunter MF, Kimm L, Cafarlli Dees D, Kennedy CR, Thornton AR. Feasibility of otoacoustic emission detection followed by ABR as a universal neonatal screening test for hearing impairment. Br J Audiol. 1994; 28: 47–51
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson JT, Jacobson CA. The effects of noise in transient EOAE newborn hearing screening. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1994; 29: 235–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger EH, Killion MC. Comparison of the noise attenuation of three audiometric earphones, with additional data on masking near threshold. J Acoust Soc Am. 1989; 86: 1392–403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White KR. Universal newborn hearing screening using transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions: past, present, and future. Semin Hear. 1996; 17: 171–83
   Google Scholar
• Clemens CJ, Davis SA. Minimizing false positives in universal newborn hearing screening: a simple solution. Pediatrics. 2001; 107: E29
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalzell LE, Orlando MS, Seeger C. Three-stage newborn hearing screening reduces failures at discharge. Am Acad Audiol Nat Conv; Salt Lake City, US; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Rhodes MC, Margolis RH, Hirsch JE, Napp AP. Hearing screening in the newborn intensive care nursery: comparison of methods. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999; 120: 799–808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute of Health. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Early identification of hearing impairment in infants and young children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1993;27:215–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwasaki S, Hayashi Y, Seki A, Nagura M, Hashimoto Y, Oshima G, et al. A model of two-stage newborn hearing screening with automated auditory brainstem response. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2003; 67: 1099–104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White KR, Vohr BR, Meyer S, Widen JE, Johnson JL, Gravel JS, et al. A multisite study to examine the efficacy of the otoacoustic emission/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol: research design and results of the study. Am J Audiol. 2005; 14: S186–99
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dort JC, Tobolski C, Brown D. Screening strategies for neonatal hearing loss: which test is best?. J Otolaryngol. 2000; 29: 206–10
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chan RH, McPherson B. Test-retest reliability of tone-burst-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Acta Otolaryngol. 2000; 120: 825–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang VW, McPherson B, Shi BX, Tang JLF. An alternative method in neonatal hearing screening: click otoacoustic emissions plus tone-burst otoacoustic emissions. XXVIIIth Int Congr Audiol; Innsbruck, Austria; 2006. pp. 75.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie RC, Ireland A. Effects of sample size on the noise floor and distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Scand Audiol. 2000; 29: 93–102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cropper L, Kei J, Smyth V, Maurer M, Young J, Tudehope D, et al. Neonatal transient evoked otoacoustic emissions screening: how many stimuli are enough?. Aust N Z J Audiol. 2002; 24: 49–53
   Google Scholar
• Korres SG, Balatsouras DG, Economou C, Ferekidis E, Kandiloros D, Adamopoulos G. Effect of the number of averaged responses in transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions on the results of neonatal hearing screening. Audiology. 2000; 39: 293–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Picton TW, Linden RD, Hamel G, Maru JT. Aspects of averaging. Semin Hear. 1983; 4: 327–41
   Google Scholar
• Dirckx JJ, Daemers K, Somers T, Offeciers FE, Govaerts PJ. Numerical assessment of TOAE screening results: currently used criteria and their effect on TOAE prevalence figures. Acta Otolaryngol. 1996; 116: 672–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kompis M, Oberli M, Brugger U. A novel real time noise reduction system for the assessment of evoked otoacoustic emissions. Comput Biol Med. 2000; 30: 341–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp DT, Ryan S. The use of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions in neonatal hearing screening programmes. Semin Hear. 1993; 14: 30–44
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald TS, Prieve BA. COAE thresholds: 1. Effects of equal-amplitude versus subtraction methods. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997; 40: 1164–76
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prieve BA, Fitzgerald TS, Schulte LE. Basic characteristics of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in infants and children. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997; 102: 2860–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tognola G, Grandori F, Ravazzani P. Evaluation of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in newborns: effects of time-windowing. Audiology. 1999; 38: 127–34
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whitehead ML, Jimenez AM, Stagner BB, McCoy MJ, LonsburyMartin BL, Martin GK. Time-windowing of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions to increase signal-to-noise ratio. Ear Hear. 1995; 16: 599–611
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatzopoulos S, Cheng J, Grzanka A, Morlet T, Martini A. Optimization of TEOAE recording protocols: a linear protocol derived from parameters of a time-frequency analysis: a pilot study on neonatal subjects. Scand Audiol. 2000; 29: 21–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grandori F, Collet L, Kemp D, Salomon G, Schorn K, Thornton AR. Universal screening for infant hearing impairment. European Concerted Action on Otoacoustic Emissions. Pediatrics. 1994; 94: 956–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grandori F, Ravazzani P. Non-linearities of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions and the derived non-linear technique. Br J Audiol. 1993; 27: 97–102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatzopoulos S, Petrucelli J, Morlet T, Martini A. TEOAE recording protocols revised: data from adult subjects. Int J Audiol. 2003; 42: 339–47
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravazzani P, Tognola G, Grandori F. ‘Derived non-linear’ versus ‘linear’ click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Audiology. 1996; 35: 73–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von Specht H, Ganz M, Pethe J, Leuschner S, Pytel J. Linear versus non-linear recordings of transiently-evoked otoacoustic emissions – methodological considerations. Scand Audiol. 2001; 30: 116–8
   Google Scholar
• Giebel A. Applying signal statistical analysis to TEOAE measurements. Scand Audiol Suppl. 2001 130–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bray PJ. A study of the properties of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions and development of a clinical otoacoustic hearing test instrument. University of College and Middlesex School of Medicine, London 1989
   Google Scholar
• Ravazzani P, Tognola G, Grandori F. Optimal band pass filtering of transient- evoked otoacoustic emissions in neonates. Audiology. 1999; 38: 69–74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tognola G, Ravazzani P, Grandori F. An optimal filtering technique to reduce the influence of low-frequency noise on click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Br J Audiol. 1995; 29: 153–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gong Q, Ye DT, Guo LS, Liu B, Liu C. A study of the reduction of the stimulus artifact using a predictor-subtractor-restorer (PSR) filter. Acta Acustica (Chin) 2002; 27: 471–6
   Google Scholar
• Brass D, Watkins P, Kemp DT. Assessment of an implementation of a narrow band, neonatal otoacoustic emission screening method. Ear Hear. 1994; 15: 467–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kei J, Flynn C, McPherson B, Smyth V, Latham S, Loscher J. The effect of high-pass filtering on TEOAE in two-month-old infants. Br J Audiol. 2001; 35: 67–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozdamar O, Delgado RE, Rahman S, Lopez C. Adaptive Wiener filtering for improved acquisition of distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Ann of Biomed Eng. 1998; 26: 883–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado RE, Ozdamar O, Rahman S, Lopez CN. Adaptive noise cancellation in a multimicrophone system for distortion product otoacoustic emission acquisition. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2000; 47: 1154–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton AR. Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions: new techniques and applications. Br J Audiol. 1993; 27: 109–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thornton AR, Folkard TJ, Chambers JD. Technical aspects of recording evoked otoacoustic emissions using maximum length sequences. Scand Audiol. 1994; 23: 225–31
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belov OA, Kruglov AV, Tavartkiladze GA. Hand-held device for OAE-based screening. Scand Audiol Suppl. 2001; 30: 13–4
   Google Scholar
• Hine JE, Thornton AR. Transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions recorder using maximum length sequences as a function of stimulus rate and level. Ear Hear. 1997; 18: 121–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lina-Granade G, Collet L. Effect of interstimulus interval on evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res. 1995; 87: 55–61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hine JE, Ho CT, Slaven A, Thornton AR. Comparison of transient-evoked otoacoustic emission thresholds recorded conventionally and using maximum length sequences. Hear Res. 2001; 156: 104–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapadia S, Lutman ME. Static input-output non-linearity as the source of non-linear effects in maximum length sequence click-evoked OAEs. Br J Audiol. 2001; 35: 103–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaven A, Thornton AR. Neonatal otoacoustic emissions recorded using maximum length sequence stimuli. Ear Hear. 1998; 19: 103–10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picton TW, Kellett AJ, Vezsenyi M, Rabinovitch DE. Otoacoustic emissions recorded at rapid stimulus rates. Ear Hear. 1993; 14: 299–314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Boer J, Thornton AR. Volterra slice otoacoustic emissions recorded using maximum length sequences from patients with sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res. 2006; 219: 121–36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hine JE, Thornton AR. Transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions recorded using maximum length sequences from patients with sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res. 2005; 203: 122–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ismail H, Thornton AR. The interaction between ear and sex differences and stimulus rate. Hear Res. 2003; 179: 97–103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du Y, Liu J, Nie KB. A new method for eliminating artifact in transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions using ICA. Chin J Biomed Eng. 2004; 23: 414–8
   Google Scholar
• Widrow B. Adaptive signal processing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1985
   Google Scholar
• Patel SB, Callahan TF, Callahan MG, Jones JT, Graber GP, Foster KS, et al. An adaptive noise reduction stethoscope for auscultation in high noise environments. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 103: 2483–91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kompis M, Dillier N. Performance of an adaptive beamforming noise reduction scheme for hearing aid applications. I. Prediction of the signal-to-noise-ratio improvement. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 109: 1123–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kompis M, Dillier N. Performance of an adaptive beamforming noise reduction scheme for hearing aid applications. II. Experimental verification of the predictions. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 109: 1134–43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kompis M, Feuz P, Fransois J, Tinembart J. Multi-microphone digital-signal-processing system for research into noise reduction for hearing aids. Innov Techn Biol Med. 1999; 20: 201–6
   Google Scholar
• van den Berghe J, Wouters J. An adaptive noise canceller for hearing aids using two nearby microphones. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 103: 3621–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrara ER, Widrow B. Foetal electrocardiogram enhancement by time-sequenced adaptive filtering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1982; 29: 458–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James CJ, Hagan MT, Jones RD, Bones PJ, Carroll GJ. Multireference adaptive noise cancelling applied to the EEG. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1997; 44: 775–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tognola G, Parazzini M, de Jager P, Brienesse P, Ravazzani P, Grandori F. Cochlear maturation and otoacoustic emissions in preterm infants: a time-frequency approach. Hear Res. 2005; 199: 71–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du Y, Nie KB, Liu J. Time-frequency analysis of TEOAEs by STFT. Beijing Biomed Eng. 2004; 23: 105–8
   Google Scholar
• Hatzopoulos S, Cheng J, Grzanka A, Martini A. Time-frequency analyses of TEOAE recordings from normal and SNHL patients. Audiology. 2000; 39: 1–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang YF, Guo ZY, Wang WL, He SD, Lee T, Loew M. A comparison of the wavelet and short-time Fourier transforms for Doppler spectral analysis. Med Eng Phys (Chin) 2003; 25: 547–57
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng J. Time-frequency analysis of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions via smoothed pseudo Wigner distribution. Scand Audiol. 1995; 24: 91–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tognola G, Grandori F, Ravazzani P. Wavelet analysis of click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1998; 45: 686–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blinowska KJ, Durka PJ, Skierski A, Grandori F, Tognola G. High resolution time-frequency analysis of otoacoustic emissions. Technol Health Care. 1997; 5: 407–18
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jedrzejczak WW, Blinowska KJ, Konopka W. Time-frequency analysis of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions of subjects exposed to noise. Hear Res. 2005; 205: 249–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jedrzejczak WW, Blinowska KJ, Konopka W, Grzanka A, Durka PJ. Identification of otoacoustic emissions components by means of adaptive approximations. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004; 115: 2148–58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blinowska KJ, Durka PJ. Introduction to wavelet analysis. Br J Audiol. 1997; 31: 449–59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janušauskas A, Marozas V, Engdahl B, Hoffman HJ, Svensson O, Sornmo L. Otoacoustic emissions and improved pass/fail separation using wavelet analysis and time-windowing. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2001; 39: 134–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pasanen EG, Travis JD, Thornhill RJ. Wavelet-type analysis of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Biomed Sci Instrum. 1994; 30: 75–80
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wit HP, Vandijk P, Avan P. Wavelet analysis of real ear and synthesized click-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res. 1994; 73: 141–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang LP, Young ST, Kuo TS. Modification of the wavelet method used in transiently evoked otoacoustic emission pass/fail criterion to increase its accuracy. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2002; 40: 34–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chai X, Cheng J, Dong H, Shou Y, Dong M. Wavelet application to reduction of stimulus artifact in transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions testing. J Biomed Eng (Chin). 1999;16:177–80, 88.
   Google Scholar
• Gong Q, Ye DT, Guo LS, Liu B, Liu C. Clinic application and wavelet analysis of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) signals. Acta Biophysica Sinica (Chin) 2001; 17: 303–10
   Google Scholar
• Li LM, Lin JS, Zhang ZG. Recognition of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Acta Acad Med Sinicae (Chin) 1999; 21: 322–5
   Google Scholar
• Gong Q, Ye DT, Guo LS, Liu B, Liu C. Wavelet based study of the reduction of the stimulus artifact in the signal of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Tsinghua Univ (Sci & Tech) 2001; 41: 31–5
   Google Scholar
• Ye WX, Ye DT, Cao Y. Detection of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions using wavelet transform modulus maxima reconstruction. J Tsinghua Univ (Sci & Tech) 2003; 43: 1218–21
   Google Scholar
• Salimpour Y, Abolhassani MD. Noise reduction of otoacoustic emission based on multiresolution decomposition and active cochlear model. IFMBE Proc 2nd Eur Med Biol Eng Conf; Vienna, Austria; 2002. pp. 466–7.
   Google Scholar
• Li XD, Tong LZ, Wang L, Liu XL, Nie SJ, Liu B. The method of wavelet threshold denoising used to analyse the transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions. Beijing Biomed Eng. 2006; 25: 182–4
   Google Scholar
• Wu HC, Young ST, Kuo TS. Wavelet transform based denoising in transient- evoked OAE measurement. J Med Biol Eng. 2002; 22: 171–81
   Google Scholar