1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Comparison of cochlear delay estimates using otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem responses
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.3168508
/content/asa/journal/jasa/126/3/10.1121/1.3168508
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/126/3/10.1121/1.3168508

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Envelopes of the estimated EC and transducer signals (dashed curve), noise residue (dotted curve), and of the OAE response (solid curve) for (a) a TB and (b) a TB. The identified first peak attributed to the TBOAE is indicated by the arrow. Both these examples are from the same illustrative subject.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

The OAE and BM latency estimates for the 11 subjects are shown in the left and right panels, respectively. The OAE latency is defined as the time between stimulus onset and the peak of the OAE burst. The BM latency estimate, , is calculated following Eq. (2). The error bars represent std.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Comparison between (solid curve) and (dashed curve) for (a) subject 10 and (b) mean across subjects. The data points are also plotted (symbols ⋆ and ◻) and are connected by dotted lines. The solid and dashed lines represent the best fit to the data. The value of resulting from the two-way ANOVA test is indicated. For both the illustrative subject and the mean across subjects , it is therefore considered that OAE and ABR are significantly different.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Histogram of all calculated to ratios. Group shown in light gray represent potential outliers.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

TB stimuli used, with length in ms and number of cycles.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Table of individual mean EC impulse response lengths and standard deviations.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Inter-subject variability for and across frequency and given in percentage. The percentage is calculated as the ratio between the standard deviation and the mean value.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Delay power-law function fitting parameters for Eq. (5) across subject. Note the mean refers to the model fitted to the mean latency data and not the mean of the parameters shown.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

Statistical analysis results. Column 2 gives the subject dependent interpeak and synaptic delay standard deviation, with the difference from that used by Moleti and Sisto (2008) given in parentheses. Column 3 gives the -values from the ANOVA test with any significant results given in bold. The -values in parentheses were obtained when using the fixed Moleti and Sisto (2008) interpeak and synaptic delay. Note the mean refers to the results for the mean latency data and not the mean of the parameters shown.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/126/3/10.1121/1.3168508
2009-09-01
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Comparison of cochlear delay estimates using otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem responses
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/126/3/10.1121/1.3168508
10.1121/1.3168508
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM