Artifact rejection of distortion product otoacoustic emissions measured after sound exposure
Publication: Research - peer-review › Article in proceeding
Standard
Artifact rejection of distortion product otoacoustic emissions measured after sound exposure. / Reuter, Karen; Ordoñez, Rodrigo Pizarro; de Toro, Miguel Angel Aranda; Hammershøi, Dorte.
Proceedings of 19th International Congress on Acoustics - ICA07: Acoustics of the 21st Century. ed. / Antonio Calvo-Manzano; Antonio Pérez-López; J. Salvador Santiago. Spanish Acoustical Society, 2007.Publication: Research - peer-review › Article in proceeding
Harvard
APA
CBE
MLA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - GEN
T1 - Artifact rejection of distortion product otoacoustic emissions measured after sound exposure
A1 - Reuter,Karen
A1 - Ordoñez,Rodrigo Pizarro
A1 - de Toro,Miguel Angel Aranda
A1 - Hammershøi,Dorte
AU - Reuter,Karen
AU - Ordoñez,Rodrigo Pizarro
AU - de Toro,Miguel Angel Aranda
AU - Hammershøi,Dorte
PB - Spanish Acoustical Society
PY - 2007
Y1 - 2007
N2 - In a previous study [3] distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) were measured both before and after a moderate sound exposure, which caused a reduction of DPOAE levels. After the exposure DPOAEs had often levels below the noise floor. In the present paper it is discussed, whether these low-level measurements should be rejected in the data analysis. Five different artifact rejection methods were applied to the data and the results compared. The obtained DPOAE shifts (subtraction of post-exposure data from pre-exposure data) are rather similar for the different methods. It is concluded, that the most appropriate artifact rejection method for the purpose of the present study is to reject data only, if they are below the noise floor both before and after the exposure.
AB - In a previous study [3] distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) were measured both before and after a moderate sound exposure, which caused a reduction of DPOAE levels. After the exposure DPOAEs had often levels below the noise floor. In the present paper it is discussed, whether these low-level measurements should be rejected in the data analysis. Five different artifact rejection methods were applied to the data and the results compared. The obtained DPOAE shifts (subtraction of post-exposure data from pre-exposure data) are rather similar for the different methods. It is concluded, that the most appropriate artifact rejection method for the purpose of the present study is to reject data only, if they are below the noise floor both before and after the exposure.
BT - Proceedings of 19th International Congress on Acoustics - ICA07
T2 - Proceedings of 19th International Congress on Acoustics - ICA07
A2 - Salvador Santiago,J.
ED - Salvador Santiago,J.
ER -