Exploration of stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission suppression tuning in hearing-impaired listeners

References

• Abdala C. & Fitzgerald T.S. 2003. Ipsilateral distortion product otoacoustic emission (2f1-f2) suppression in children with sensorineural hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 919–931.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baiduc R.R., Lee J. & Dhar S. 2014. Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions, threshold microstructure, and psychophysical tuning over a wide frequency range in humans. J Acoust Soc Am, 135, 300–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brass D. & Kemp D.T. 1993. Suppression of stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am, 93, 920–939.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charaziak K.K., Souza P. & Siegel J.H. 2012. Time-efficient measures of auditory frequency selectivity. Int J Audiol, 51, 317–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charaziak K.K., Souza P. & Siegel J.H. 2013. Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emission suppression tuning in humans: Comparison to behavioral tuning. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 14, 843–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheatham M.A., Katz E.D., Charaziak K.K., Dallos P. & Siegel J.H. 2011. Using stimulus frequency emissions to characterize cochlear function in mice. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1403, 383–388.
   Google Scholar
• Dorn P.A., Piskorski P., Keefe D.H., Neely S.T. & Gorga M.P. 1998. On the existence of an age/threshold/frequency interaction in distortion product otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 964–971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellison J.C. & Keefe D.H. 2005. Audiometric predictions using stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions and middle-ear measurements. Ear Hear, 26, 487–503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florentine M., Buus S., Scharf B. & Zwicker E. 1980. Frequency selectivity in normally-hearing and hearing-impaired observers. J Speech Hear Res, 23, 646–669.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gorga M.P., Neely S.T., Dierking D.M., Dorn P.A., Hoover B.M. et al. 2003. Distortion product otoacoustic emission suppression tuning curves in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired human ears. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 263–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruhlke A., Birkholz C., Neely S.T., Kopun J., Tan H. et al. 2012. Distortion-product otoacoustic emission suppression tuning curves in hearing- impaired humans. J Acoust Soc Am, 132, 3292–3304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris F.P., Probst R. & Xu L. 1992. Suppression of the 2f1-f2 otoacoustic emission in humans. Hear Res, 64, 133–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard M.A., Stagner B.B., Foster P.K., Lonsbury-Martin B.L. & Martin G.K. 2003. Suppression tuning in noise-exposed rabbits. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 279–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson T.A. & Beshaler L. 2013. Influence of stimulus parameters on amplitude-modulated stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am, 134, 1121–1133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson T.A., Gorga M.P., Neely S.T., Oxenham A.J. & Shera C.A. 2007. Relationships between otoacoustic and psychophysical measures of cochlear function. In: G.A Manley, R.R. Fay & A.N. Popper (eds.), Active Processes and Otoacoustic Emissions in Hearing. New York: Springer, pp. 395–420.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson T.A., Neely S.T., Garner C.A. & Gorga M.P. 2006. Influence of primary-level and primary-frequency ratios on human distortion product otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am, 119, 418–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalluri R. & Shera C.A. 2007. Comparing stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions measured by compression, suppression, and spectral smoothing. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 3562–3575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keefe D.H., Ellison J.C., Fitzpatrick D.F. & Gorga M.P. 2008. Two-tone suppression of stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1479–1494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp D.T. 1978. Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am, 64, 1386–1391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp D.T. 2007. Otoacoustic emissions: The basics, the science and the future potential. In: M.S. Robinette & T.J. Glattke (eds.), Otoacoustic Emissions: Clinical Applications. New York: Theime, pp. 7–42.
   Google Scholar
• Kemp D.T. & Chum R.A. 1980. Observations on the generator mechanism of stimulus frequency acoustic emissions: Two tone suppression. In: E. Deboer & M.A. Viergever (eds.), Psychophysical, Physiological and Behavioral Studies in Hearing. Delft: Delft University Press, pp. 34–41.
   Google Scholar
• Lee J., Dhar S., Abel R., Banakis R., Grolley E. et al. 2012. Behavioral hearing thresholds between 0.125 and 20 kHz using depth-compensated ear simulator calibration. Ear Hear, 33, 315–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margolis R.H. & Heller J.W. 1987. Screening tympanometry: Criteria for medical referral. Audiology, 26, 197–208.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin G.K., Jassir D., Stagner B.B. & Lonsbury-Martin B.L. 1998. Effects of loop diuretics on the suppression tuning of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in rabbits. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 972–983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin G.K., Lonsbury-Martin B.L., Probst R. & Coats A.C. 1988. Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions in a nonhuman primate. 1. Basic features and relations to other emissions. Hear Res, 33, 49–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C. & Glasberg B.R. 1986. Comparisons of frequency selectivity in simultaneous and forward masking for subjects with unilateral cochlear impairments. J Acoust Soc Am, 80, 93–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J. 2008. Masking, frequency selectivity and basilar membrane nonlinearity. Cochlear Hearing Loss. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 45–91.
   Google Scholar
• Moore B.C.J., Vickers D.A., Plack C.J. & Oxenham A.J. 1999. Inter-relationship between different psychoacoustic measures assumed to be related to the cochlear active mechanism. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 2761–2778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neely S.T., Johnson T.A., Garner C.A. & Gorga M.P. 2005. Stimulus- frequency otoacoustic emissions measured with amplitude-modulated suppressor tones. J Acoust Soc Am, 118, 2124–2127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxenham A.J. & Shera C.A. 2003. Estimates of human cochlear tuning at low levels using forward and simultaneous masking. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 4, 541–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson J.D., Baer T. & Moore B.C. 2007. Using transposition to improve consonant discrimination and detection for listeners with severe high-frequency hearing loss. Int J Audiol, 46, 293–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robles L. & Ruggero M.A. 2001. Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Physiol Rev, 81, 1305–1352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruggero M.A. & Temchin A.N. 2005. Unexceptional sharpness of frequency tuning in the human cochlea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 102, 18614–18619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schairer K.S., Fitzpatrick D. & Keefe, D.H. 2003. Input-output functions for stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions in normal-hearing adult ears. J Acoust Soc Am, 114, 944–966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schairer K.S. & Keefe D.H. 2005. Simultaneous recording of stimulus- frequency and distortion-product otoacoustic emission input-output functions in human ears. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 818–832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sęk A., Alcantara J., Moore B.C.J., Kluk K. & Wicher A. 2005. Development of a fast method for determining psychophysical tuning curves. Int J Audiol, 44, 408–420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shera C.A. & Guinan J.J., Jr. 1999. Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: A taxonomy for mammalian OAEs. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 782–798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P.G. & Jesteadt W. 1984. Psychophysical tuning curves in normal-hearing listeners: Test reliability and probe level effects. J Speech Hear Res, 27, 396–402.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P.G., Jesteadt W., Gorga M.P. & Mott J. 1985. Speech perception ability and psychophysical tuning curves in hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 77, 620–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wier C.C., Pasanen E.G. & Mcfadden D. 1988. Partial dissociation of spontaneous otoacoustic emissions and distortion products during aspirin use in humans. J Acoust Soc Am, 84, 230–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zurek P.M. 1981. Spontaneous narrowband acoustic signals emitted by human ears. J Acoust Soc Am, 69, 514–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zweig G. & Shera C.A. 1995. The origin of periodicity in the spectrum of evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am, 98, 2018–2047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwicker E. 1974. On a psychoacoustical equivalent of tunning curves. In: E. Zwicker, & E. Terhardt (eds.), Facts and Models in Hearing. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 132–140.
   Google Scholar
• Zwicker E. & Schorn K. 1978. Psychoacoustical tuning curves in audiology. Audiology, 17, 120–140.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zwicker E. & Wesel J. 1990. The effect of addition in suppression of delayed evoked otoacoustic emissions and in masking. Acta Acustica, 70, 189–196.
   Google Scholar