Skip to main content
Log in

Estimation of Round-Trip Outer-Middle Ear Gain Using DPOAEs

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The reported research introduces a noninvasive approach to estimate round-trip outer-middle ear pressure gain using distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs). Our ability to hear depends primarily on sound waves traveling through the outer and middle ear toward the inner ear. The role of the outer and middle ear in sound transmission is particularly important for otoacoustic emissions (OAEs), which are sound signals generated in a healthy cochlea and recorded by a sensitive microphone placed in the ear canal. OAEs are used to evaluate the health and function of the cochlea; however, they are also affected by outer and middle ear characteristics. To better assess cochlear health using OAEs, it is critical to quantify the effect of the outer and middle ear on sound transmission. DPOAEs were obtained in two conditions: (i) two-tone and (ii) three-tone. In the two-tone condition, DPOAEs were generated by presenting two primary tones in the ear canal. In the three-tone condition, DPOAEs at the same frequencies (as in the two-tone condition) were generated by the interaction of the lower frequency primary tone in the two-tone condition with a distortion product generated by the interaction of two other external tones. Considering how the primary tones and DPOAEs of the aforementioned conditions were affected by the forward and reverse outer-middle ear transmission, an estimate of the round-trip outer-middle ear pressure gain was obtained. The round-trip outer-middle ear gain estimates ranged from −39 to −17 dB between 1 and 3.3 kHz.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIG. 1
FIG. 2
FIG. 3
FIG. 4
FIG. 5
FIG. 6
FIG. 7
FIG. 8
FIG. 9
FIG. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

OAE:

Otoacoustic emission

DPOAE:

Distortion product otoacoustic emission

f1 :

Primary tone with frequency f1

f2 :

Primary tone with frequency f2

I/O:

Input/output

DP:

Distortion product

fa :

Primary tone with frequency fa

fb :

Primary tone with frequency fb

OMEG:

Outer-middle ear gain

DPOAE2T :

DPOAE generated by the interaction of primary tones f1 and f2 in the two-tone condition

L2 :

Level of the primary tone with frequency f2

Gft :

Forward outer-middle ear transmission

L2C :

L2 Level in the cochlea

GfC :

Forward cochlear gain from base to the f2 place

L1 :

Level of the primary tone with frequency f1

La :

Level of the primary tone with frequency fa

Lb :

Level of the primary tone with frequency fb

DPOAE 3T :

DPOAE generated by the interaction of primary tones fa and fb in the three-tone condition

LabC :

Distortion product generated by La and Lb

L 2C :

Best place wave for the distortion product LabC

DPOAE3T :

DPOAE generated by the interaction of f1 and L 2C in the three-tone condition

G fC :

Forward cochlear gain from LabC place to 2fa–fb place

Gen 3T :

DPOAE3T generator component

GrC :

Cochlear gain from the f2 place to the base

Grt :

Reverse outer-middle ear transmission

LSF:

Least squares fit

References

  • Abdala C, Mishra SK, Williams TL (2009) Considering distortion product otoacoustic emission fine structure in measurements of the medial olivocochlear reflex. J Acoust Soc Am 125(3):1584–1594

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Aibara R, Welsh JT, Puria S, Goode RL (2001) Human middle-ear sound transfer function and cochlear input impedance. Hear Res 152(1):100–109

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, JB (1986) Measurement of eardrum acoustic impedance. In Peripheral auditory mechanisms, 44–51. Springer

  • Brown AM, Gaskill SA (1990) Measurement of acoustic distortion reveals underlying similarities between human and rodent mechanical responses. J Acoust Soc Am 88(2):840–849

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown AM, Harris FP, Beveridge HA (1996) Two sources of acoustic distortion products from the human cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 100(5):3260–3267

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen S, Zhang H, Wang L, Li G (2014) An in-situ calibration method and the effects on stimulus frequency otoacoustic emissions. Biomed Eng Online 13(1):95

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chien W, Rosowski JJ, Ravicz ME, Rauch SD, Smullen J, Merchant SN (2009) Measurements of stapes velocity in live human ears. Hear Res 249(1):54–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer E, Nuttall AL (2001) Power gain of the cochlear ampli fier. In Physiological and psychological bases of auditory function, ed. A Kohlrausch VF Prijs R Schoonhoven DJ Breebaart AJM Houtsma, 1–7

  • Dhar S, Talmadge CL, Long GR, Tubis A (2002) Multiple internal reflections in the cochlea and their effect on DPOAE fine structure. J Acoust Soc Am 112(6):2882–2897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dong W, Olson ES (2006) Middle ear forward and reverse transmission in gerbil. J Neurophysiol 95(5):2951–2961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dong W, Decraemer WF, Olson ES (2012) Reverse transmission along the ossicular chain in Gerbil. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13(4):447–459

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Feeney PM, Keefe DH, Sanford CA (2004) Wideband reflectance measures of the ipsilateral acoustic stapedius reflex threshold. Ear Hear 25(5):421–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskill SA, Brown AM (1996) Suppression of human acoustic distortion product: dual origin of 2f1–f2. J Acoust Soc Am 100(5):3268–3274

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henin S, Thompson S, Abdelrazeq S, Long GR (2011) Changes in amplitude and phase of distortion product otoacoustic emission fine-structure and separated components during efferent activation. J Acoust Soc Am 129(4):2068–2079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henin S, Long GR, Thompson S (2014) Wide-band detection of middle ear muscle activation using swept-tone distortion product otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 136(1):272–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huber A, Linder T, Dillier N, Ferrazzini M, Stoeckli S, Schmid S, Fisch U (2001) Intraoperative assessment of stapes movement. Ann Otol, Rhinol Laryngol 110(1):31–35

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kalluri R, Shera CA (2001) Distortion-product source unmixing: a test of the two-mechanism model for dpoae generation. J Acoust Soc Am 109(2):622–637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keefe DH (2001) Input/output functions of distortion product otoacoustic emissions predict the spectral shapes of the forward and reverse middle-ear transfer function. 24th Annual Midwinter Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, Des Moines, IA

  • Keefe DH (2002) Spectral shapes of forward and reverse transfer functions between ear canal and cochlea estimated using dpoae input/output functions. J Acoust Soc Am 111(1):249–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keefe DH (2015) Human middle-ear model with compound eardrum and airway branching in mastoid air cells. J Acoust Soc Am 137(5):2698–2725

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp DT (1978) Stimulated acoustic emissions from within the human auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am 64:1386–1391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp DT (1986) Otoacoustic emissions, travelling waves and cochlear mechanisms. Hear Res 22(1):95–104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp DT, AM Brown (1983) An integrated view of cochlear mechanical nonlinearities observable from the ear canal. In Mechanics of hearing, eds. Egbert de Boer and Max A Viergever, 75–82. Springer

  • Kummer P, Janssen T, Arnold W (1995) Suppression tuning characteristics of the 2f1–f2 distortion-product otoacoustic emission in humans. J Acoust Soc Am 98(1):197–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Long GR, Talmadge CL (1997) Spontaneous otoacoustic emission frequency is modulated by heartbeat. J Acoust Soc Am 102(5):2831–2848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Long GR, Talmadge CL, Lee J (2008) Measuring distortion product otoacoustic emissions using continuously sweeping primaries. J Acoust Soc Am 124(3):1613–1626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Long GR, Changmo J, Talmadge CL (2009) Dependence of distortion-product otoacoustic emission components on primary-level ratio. In Concepts and challenges in the biophysics of hearing, Vol. 1, 203–208. Singapore World Scientific Press

  • Magnan P, Avan P, Dancer A, Smurzynski J, Probst R (1997) Reverse middle-ear transfer function in the guinea pig measured with cubic difference tones. Hear Res 107(1):41–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin GK, Stagner BB, Dong W, Lonsbury-Martin BL (2016) Comparing distortion product otoacoustic emissions to intracochlear distortion products inferred from a noninvasive assay. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol

  • Mauermann M, Uppenkamp S, van Hengel PWJ, Kollmeier B (1999) Evidence for the distortion product frequency place as a source of distortion product otoacoustic emission (dpoae) fine structure in humans. i. fine structure and higher order DPOAE as a function of the frequency ratio f2/f1. J Acoust Soc Am 106(6):3473–3483

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Naghibolhosseini M (2015) Estimation of outer-middle ear transmission using DPOAEs and fractional-order modeling of human middle ear. PhD diss, City University of New York

  • Naghibolhosseini M, Long G (2016) Fractional-order modeling of the human ear. 39th Annual Midwinter Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, San Diego, CA 39: 241

  • Nakajima HH, Dong W, Olson ES, Merchant SN, Ravicz ME, Rosowski J (2009) Differential intracochlear sound pressure measurements in normal human temporal bones. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 10(1):23–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nuttall AL (1974) Measurements of the guinea-pig middle-ear transfer characteristic. J Acoust Soc Am 56(4):1231–1238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olson ES (2001) Intracochlear pressure measurements related to cochlear tuning. J Acoust Soc Am 110(1):349–367

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Puria S (2003) Measurements of human middle ear forward and reverse acoustics: implications for otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 113(5):2773–2789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Puria S, Rosowski JJ (1996) Measurement of reverse transmission in the human middle ear: preliminary results. Offprint of the conference proceedings: diversity in auditory mechanics. Berkeley, CA. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 151–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Puria S, Peake WT, Rosowski JJ (1997) Sound-pressure measurements in the cochlear vestibule of human-cadaver ears. J Acoust Soc Am 101(5):2754–2770

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ravicz ME, Rosowski JJ (2013) Middle-ear velocity transfer function, cochlear input immittance, and middle-ear efficiency in chinchilla. J Acoust Soc Am 134(4):2852–2865

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ravicz ME, Cooper NP, Rosowski JJ (2008) Gerbil middle ear sound transmission from 100 hz to 60 khz. J Acoust Soc Am 124(1):363–380

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ravicz ME, Slama MCC, Rosowski J (2010) Middle-ear pressure gain and cochlear partition differential pressure in chinchilla. Hear Res 263(1):16–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robles L, Ruggero MA (2001) Mechanics of the mammalian cochlea. Physiol Rev 81(3):1305–1352

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer LA, Withnell RH, Dhar S, Lilly DJ, Goodman SS, Harmon KM (2003) Sources and mechanisms of dpoae generation: implications for the prediction of auditory sensitivity. Ear Hear 24(5):367–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shera CA, Guinan JJ (1999) Evoked otoacoustic emissions arise by two fundamentally different mechanisms: a taxonomy for mammalian OAEs. J Acoust Soc Am 105(2):782–798

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shera CA, Guinan JJ (2007) Cochlear traveling wave amplification, suppression, and beamforming probed using noninvasive calibration of intracochlear distortion sources. J Acoust Soc Am 121(2):1003–1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shera CA, Miller AJ (2002) Using DPOAEs to measure forward and reverse middle-ear transmission noninvasively. 25th annual meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

  • Slama MCC, Ravicz ME, Rosowski JJ (2010) Middle ear function and cochlear input impedance in chinchilla. J Acoust Soc Am 127(3):1397–1410

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Songer JE, Rosowski JJ (2007) Transmission matrix analysis of the chinchilla middle ear. J Acoust Soc Am 122(2):932–942

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Talmadge CL, Tubis A, Piskorski P, Long GR (1997) Modeling otoacoustic emission fine structures. In Diversity in auditory mechanics, eds. Lewis ER, Long GR, Lyon RF, Narins PM, Steele CR, 462–471

  • Talmadge CL, Tubis A, Long GR, Piskorski P (1998) Modeling otoacoustic emission and hearing threshold fine structures. J Acoust Soc Am 104(3):1517–1543

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Talmadge CL, Long GR, Tubis A, Dhar S (1999) Experimental confirmation of the two-source interference model for the fine structure of distortion product otoacoustic emissions. J Acoust Soc Am 105(1):275–292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Voss SE, Shera CA (2004) Simultaneous measurement of middle-ear input impedance and forward/reverse transmission in cat. J Acoust Soc Am 116(4):2187–2198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Voss SE, Rosowski JJ, Merchant SN, Peake WT (2000) Acoustic responses of the human middle ear. Hear Res 150(1):43–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead ML, Stagner BB, McCoy MJ, Lonsbury-Martin BL, Martin GK (1995) Dependence of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions on primary levels in normal and impaired ears. ii. asymmetry in l1, l2 space. J Acoust Soc Am 97(4):2359–2377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zwicker E, Harris FP (1990) Psychoacoustical and ear canal cancellation of (2f1–f2)-distortion products. J Acoust Soc Am 87(6):2583–2591

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Simon Henin and Joshua Hajicek for the helpful discussions. We would also like to acknowledge Dr. Sunil Puria and Kevin O’Connor for providing us with their data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryam Naghibolhosseini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

OMEG Estimates and Generator Components Levels

Since the OMEG estimates were computed from the generator components levels, they were affected by the cochlear function. This section explains how the generator components levels for the two- and the three-tone conditions affect the OMEG estimates. The OMEG estimates are shown next to the two- and three-tone generator components levels in Figure 11. Each row of Figure 11 belongs to a different participant (participants’ identifiers are denoted in the left panels). The frequencies corresponding to the local maxima and minima of the OMEG estimates are marked by the vertical red and black dashed lines, respectively (Figure 11). Since the OMEG estimates are negative, minima in OMEG estimates are associated with more attenuation and maxima are associated with less attenuation. As can be observed in Figure 11, frequencies of minima and maxima in OMEG estimates (see left panels) mainly occur in close proximities of frequencies of maxima and minima in the generator components levels (solid lines) of the three-tone condition (see right panels) for all participants. The pattern of the maxima and minima in the generator components levels can affect the OMEG estimates (see “Discussion” section). As seen in Eq. 6, the OMEG estimates are affected by the basal cochlear gain. Removing such effects from the OMEG estimates should be further investigated in future.

FIG. 11
figure 11

Left panels: OMEG estimates using the generator components. Right panels: 2f1–f2 generator components levels for the two- and three-tone conditions, shown by dashed and solid lines, respectively. The frequencies of the maxima and minima of the OMEG estimates are marked by the vertical red and black dashed lines, respectively, in all graphs. The participants’ identifiers are shown in left panels; the levels are shown in the legend.

Middle Ear Muscle Activation and Ear Canal Calibration

Middle ear muscle activation during data collection can affect the OMEG estimates. The activation of the middle ear muscle can change the levels and phases of the primary tones measured in the ear canal and therefore, the estimates of the OMEG. To check for middle ear muscle activation, the levels and phases of the primary tones were estimated. It should be noted that the probe slippage can also result in changes of the estimated primary tones in the ear canal. Using the LSF technique, explained in “Data Analysis” section, the levels and phases of the primary tones f1 and fa (in the three-tone condition) were estimated at each Lb at the microphone in the ear canal. Since L1 and La primary tone levels presented in the ear canal were the same across different Lbs, the estimated levels and phases of f1 and fa in the ear canal should stay the same at different Lbs unless the middle ear muscle was activated or the probe position changed during the data collection. The difference between the level of f1 primary tone at Lb = 55 dB SPL and the levels of f1 primary tone at Lb = 35, 40, 45, and 50 dB SPL are displayed in Figure 12a for subject NDP12; same differences were calculated for fa primary tone levels and are shown in Figure 12c. The differences between the phases of f1 primary tone, and also the phases of fa primary tone are shown in panels b and d (Fig. 12), respectively. The corresponding levels of Lb for calculating the level and phase differences are shown in the legend of Figure 12. As shown in panels b and d, the phase differences for both f1 and fa for all Lb levels are smaller than 0.08 Rad for subject NDP12; the phase differences for other participants did not exceed 0.1 and 0.3 Rad for f1 and fa, respectively, which are negligible and within the measurement error. L1 and La differences (Fig. 12a, c) have similar patterns across frequency and they do not exceed 5 dB for NDP12; the level difference was smaller than 5 dB for other participants as well.

FIG. 12
figure 12

[NDP12] The patterns observed when subtracting L1 or La at Lbs of 35, 40, 45, and 50 dB SPL from L1 or La when Lb = 55 dB SPL (panels a and c). Panels b and d show same differences for f1 and fa phases, respectively. The vertical dashed lines show the beginning and end of the frequency range for which 2f1–f2 generator components for both conditions were available.

As explained in the previous paragraph, the estimated primary tone levels f1 and fa can change at different Lbs due to the change in the probe position in the ear canal. The f1 and fa primary level changes are shown in Figure 12a, c). As explained in “Data Collection” section, changes in the position of the probe were checked by recording the ear canal responses to broadband noise (i.e., ear canal calibrations) before and after DPOAE recordings at each Lb level. If the probe remained stable during the data collection, the L1 and La ear canal calibration would remain the same at different recordings. Otherwise, the ear canal calibration would change as a result of probe slippage in the ear canal. In order to relate the primary level changes to the changes in the ear canal calibrations, the difference between the L1 ear canal calibrations along with the L1 change between Lb = 55 and 35 dB SPL are shown in Figure 13a; the comparison when Lb = 55 and 40 dB SPL can be seen in Figure 13b (same graphs for La are shown in Figure 14a, b). If the primary level changes were due to probe slippage, then high correlations between the primary level changes and the ear canal calibration changes were expected. The difference between the mean of the ear canal calibrations obtained before and after DPOAE recording at Lb = 55 dB SPL and the mean of the calibrations at Lb = 35 dB SPL (or at Lb = 40 dB SPL) is shown in gray lines in Figures 13 and 14. The difference between the mean ear canal calibrations at Lb = 55 dB SPL and the calibrations done before the DPOAE recordings at Lb = 35 dB SPL (or Lb = 40 dB SPL) are shown in light green. The difference between the mean ear canal calibrations at Lb = 55 dB SPL and the calibrations collected after the DPOAE recording at Lb = 35 dB SPL (or Lb = 40 dB SPL) are shown in dark green curves. As seen in panel a in Figure 13, the L1 change (between Lb = 35 and 55 dB SPL), shown by blue line, is highly correlated with the difference in the mean ear canal calibration at Lb = 55 and the calibrations after Lb = 35 dB SPL, shown by the dark green line. The difference between the mean L1 ear canal calibration at Lb = 55 dB SPL and the calibration before 35 dB SPL is spiky (Fig. 13a), shown by the light green curve, which is due to the presence of noise during the calibrations. As seen in Figure 13b, the difference between mean L1 ear canal calibrations at Lb = 55 dB SPL and the calibration before and after Lb = 40 dB SPL (shown by the light and dark green lines, respectively), and the L1 and La differences (shown by the blue lines) follow the same pattern and are highly correlated. The difference between the mean L1 ear canal calibrations at Lb = 55 dB SPL and the mean ear canal calibrations at Lb = 40 dB SPL (shown by the gray line) is very similar to the L1 change (see Fig. 13b). The amount of La ear canal calibration changes and L1 differences (Fig. 14a, b) are correlated and consistent with the findings for L1 in Figure 13a, b. Therefore, due to high correlations between the primary level changes and the ear canal calibration changes and also phase changes that were within the measurement error, the probe slippage was the main source for changes in the primary tone levels and phases. However, to determine how much of the change was due to middle ear muscle activation should be further investigated.

FIG. 13
figure 13

[NDP12] Differences between L1 ear canal calibrations when Lb = 55 and Lb = 35 (a) or 40 dB SPL (b). The difference between ear canal calibrations mean at Lb = 55 and before 35 or 40 dB SPL are shown by light green lines; the difference with after 35 or 40 dB SPL are plotted by dark green lines (mean calibration level differences are depicted by gray lines). The differences between L1 for Lb = 55 and Lb = 35 or 40 dB SPL are shown by the blue lines. The vertical dashed lines show the beginning and end of the frequency range for which 2f1–f2 generator components for both conditions were available.

FIG. 14
figure 14

[NDP12] Differences between La ear canal calibrations when Lb = 55 and Lb = 35 (a) or 40 dB SPL (b). The difference between ear canal calibrations mean at Lb = 55 and before 35 or 40 dB SPL are shown by light green lines; the difference with after 35 or 40 dB SPL are plotted by dark green lines (mean calibration level differences are depicted by gray lines). The differences between L1s for Lb = 55 and Lb = 35 or 40 dB SPL are shown by the blue lines. The vertical dashed lines show the beginning and end of the frequency range for which 2f1–f2 generator components for both conditions were available.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Naghibolhosseini, M., Long, G.R. Estimation of Round-Trip Outer-Middle Ear Gain Using DPOAEs. JARO 18, 121–138 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-016-0592-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-016-0592-6

Keywords

Navigation