[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
:: Volume 21, Issue 4 (Iranian South Medical Journal 2018) ::
Iran South Med J 2018, 21(4): 297-303 Back to browse issues page
Comparison of Signal to Noise Ratio in Distor-tion Product Otoacoustic Emission between Human and Rat
Sadegh Jafarzadeh
Department of Audiology, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran , Sjafarzade@gmail.com
Abstract:   (2203 Views)
Background: Distortion product otoacoustic emissions evaluate the function of outer hair cells in the cochlea. The present study aimed to compare distortion product otoacoustic emissions between normal hearing adult human and rat to better understand their differences.
Materials and Methods: In this study, signal to noise ratio of distortion product otoacoustic emissions was evaluated and the results of normal hearing persons (n=60) and rats (n=30) were evaluated in similar conditions at of 2, 3, 4, and 5 KHz.
Results: The difference between the two groups was significant in most frequencies except 3 KHz. In rats, a higher signal to noise ratio was observed at 4 and 5 KHz and a lower ratio at 2 KHz. There was no significant difference among different frequencies in human samples.
Conclusion: Significant differences in distortion product otoacoustic emissions in the two groups may demonstrate the different mechanisms for cochlear function in human and rat. This result may indicate the need for extra cautions in using rats as an animal model.   
Keywords: DPOAE, normal hearing, human, rat.
Full-Text [PDF 329 kb]   (720 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Radiology. Diagnostic Imaging
Received: 2017/11/5 | Accepted: 2018/02/14 | Published: 2018/09/4
1. Janssen T. A review of the effectiveness of otoacoustic emissions for evaluating hearing status after newborn screening. Otol Neurotol. 2013; 34(6): 1058-63.
2. Barbosa TA, Durante AS, Granato L. Distortion-product otoacoustic emission growth curves in neonates. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2014; 60(6): 591-8.
3. Johnson TA. Cochlear sources and otoacoustic emissions. J Am Acad Audiol. 2010; 21(3): 176-86.
4. Lonsbury-Martin BL, Martin GK. The clinical utility of distortion-product otoacoustic emissions. Ear Hear. 1990; 11(2): 144-54.
5. Kaga K. Auditory nerve disease and auditory neuropathy spectrum disorders. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2016; 43(1): 10-20.
6. Modh D, Katarkar A, Alam N, et al. Relation of distortion product otoacoustic emission and tinnitus in normal hearing patients: a pilot study. Noise Health. 2014; 16(69): 69-72.
7. Torre P 3rd, Grace J, Hansen C, et al. Gender, music, and distortion product otoacoustic emission components. Ear Hear. 2013; 34(6): e74-81.
8. Wen J, Duan N, Wang Q, et al. Protective effect of propofol on noise-induced hearing loss. Brain Res 2017; 1657: 95-100.
9. Meinke DK, Clavier OH, Norris J, et al. Distortion product otoacoustic emission level maps from normal and noise-damaged cochleae. Noise Health 2013; 15(66): 315-25.
10. Reavis KM, McMillan GP, Dille MF, et al. Meta-Analysis of Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emission Retest Variability for Serial Monitoring of Cochlear Function in Adults. Ear Hear. 2015; 36(5): e251-60.
11. Poling GL, Siegel JH, Lee J, Dhar S. Characteristics of the 2f1-f2 )distortion product otoacoustic emission in a normal hearing population. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 135(1): 287-99.
12. Abdala C, Guerit F, Luo P, et al. Distortion-product otoacoustic emission reflection-component delays and cochlear tuning : estimates from across the human lifespan. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 135(4): 1950-8.
13. Hu X, Wang Y, Lau CC. et al. Effects of Noise Exposure on the Auditory Function of Ovariectomized Rats with Estrogen Deficiency. J Int Adv Otol 2016; 12(3): 261-5.
14. Vural A, Sahin MI, Aydin M, et al. The Effect of Nystatin Solution on Otoacoustic Emissions in Rats. J Int Adv Otol. 2017; 13(1): 105-9.
15. Strain GM, Rosado Martinez AJ, McGee KA, et al. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in geriatric dogs. Vet J 2016; 216: 101-6.
16. Venn RE, McBrearty AR, McKeegan D, et al. The effect of magnetic resonance imaging noise on cochlear function in dogs. Vet J 2014; 202(1): 141-5.
17. Strain GM, McGee KA. Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in young adult and geriatric cats. Vet J 2017; 221: 34-7.
18. McBrearty AR, Penderis J. Evaluation of auditory function in a population of clinically healthy cats using evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Feline Med Surg 2011; 13(12): 919-26.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

jafarzadeh S. Comparison of Signal to Noise Ratio in Distor-tion Product Otoacoustic Emission between Human and Rat. Iran South Med J. 2018; 21 (4) :297-303
URL: http://ismj.bpums.ac.ir/article-1-940-en.html

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 21, Issue 4 (Iranian South Medical Journal 2018) Back to browse issues page
دانشگاه علوم پزشکی بوشهر، طب جنوب ISMJ

Iranian South Medical Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License which allows users to read,
copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly

Copyright © 2022, Iranian South Medical Journal| All Rights Reserved

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 30 queries by YEKTAWEB 4419