Comparison of Frontal and Mastoid Bone-Conduction Thresholds in Various Conductive Lesions

No AccessJournal of Speech and Hearing ResearchResearch Article1 Dec 1969Comparison of Frontal and Mastoid Bone-Conduction Thresholds in Various Conductive Lesions Donald D. Dirks, and Carolyn M. Malmquist Donald D. Dirks University of California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California Google Scholar and Carolyn M. Malmquist University of California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California Google Scholar https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1204.725 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Unoccluded and occluded bone conduction (BC) and Sensorineural Acuity Level (SAL) thresholds at the frontal bone and the mastoid process were compared on 60 subjects with conductive hearing loss. The results were based on calibrated norms obtained on 32 subjects with normal hearing and validated on 10 cases with sensorineural hearing loss. The mastoid BC thresholds for the entire conductive group were more depressed than comparable frontal measurements, but the average difference was only five dB. The threshold data for subjects with surgically confirmed middle-ear lesions (N = 38) were analysed in greater detail by dividing the group by frontal-mastoid differences and observed physical changes within the middle ear. Approximately 20% of the group showed frontal-mastoid differences that exceeded the normal range, and these cases had either malleus fixation or an ossicular discontinuity due to incus necrosis or absence of the incus. Average results for 17 cases with stapes fixation suggested that there were no frontal-mastoid differences and that both BC curves were somewhat similarly influenced by the middle-ear impairment. The SAL and occluded BC thresholds at the frontal bone were always in close agreement and differed from the unoccluded frontal-bone measurements for the conductive cases by the amount of the average occlusion effect observed for normals. The advantages of unoccluded bone conduction at the frontal bone are stressed, and the possible use of a comparison of BC thresholds at the two sites for diagnostic purposes is suggested. Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited by Stefan Stenfelt (2013) Bone Conduction and the Middle Ear The Middle Ear10.1007/978-1-4614-6591-1_6 Hearing Research299 (19-28)1 May 2013Estimation of bone conduction skull transmission by hearing thresholds and ear-canal sound pressureSabine Reinfeldt, Stefan Stenfelt and Bo Håkansson Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery63:3 (201-204)1 Jul 2011Bone Conduction Improvement After Surgery for Conductive Hearing LossH. Vijayendra and Bhavin Parikh Ergonomics51:5 (702-718)1 May 2008Bone conduction reception: Head sensitivity mappingMaranda McBride, Tomasz Letowski and Phuong Tran International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics38:11-12 (1038-1044)1 Nov 2008Speech intelligibility differences of male and female vocal signals transmitted through bone conduction in background noise: Implications for voice communication headset designM McBride, M Hodges and J French Acta Oto-Laryngologica127:sup558 (67-72)1 Jan 2007Effects of packing on the postoperative hearing after middle ear surgeryYang-Sun Cho, Hyun-Seok Lee, Sung Hwa Hong, Won-Ho Chung, Jin-Young Min and Soo Jin Hwang Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology28:1 (18-30)1 May 2006Binaural Speech Discrimination in Noise With Bone Conduction: Applications for Hearing Loss in High-Risk PopulationsAl Yonovitz, Sreedevi Aithal, Venkatesh Aithal and Nancy Dold Otology & Neurotology26:6 (1245-1261)1 Nov 2005Bone-Conducted Sound: Physiological and Clinical AspectsStefan Stenfelt and Richard L Goode The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America113:2 (902-913)1 Feb 2003Factors contributing to bone conduction: The outer earStefan Stenfelt, Timothy Wild, Naohito Hato and Richard L. Goode The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America111:2 (947-959)1 Feb 2002Factors contributing to bone conduction: The middle earStefan Stenfelt, Naohito Hato and Richard L. Goode American Journal of Audiology7:2 (50-54)1 Oct 1998The Occlusion Effect and Ear Canal Sound Pressure LevelMarc A. Fagelson and Frederick N. Martin Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America24:2 (253-276)1 Apr 1991Basic Hearing TestsJ. Michael Dennis and J. Gail Neely Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology98:4 (245-250)1 Apr 1989Hearing in Chronic Suppurative Otitis MediaGeorge G. Browning and Stuart Gatehouse The Laryngoscope94:4 (547-549)1 Aug 1984Bone conduction evaluation related to mastoid surgeryShmuel Hornung and Ervin Ostfeld Scandinavian Audiology12:2 (135-140)1 Jan 1983Noise-induced Hearing Loss in Shipyard Workers with Unilateral Conductive Hearing LossR. Nilsson and E. Borg E. Harris Nober and Gerard L. Kupperman (1981) Physiogenic Hearing Impairment in Adults Communication Disorders10.1007/978-1-4757-9760-2_3 The Journal of Laryngology & Otology95:6 (597-608)1 Jun 1981Transcranial attenuation in bone conduction audiometryMichael Nolan and David J. Lyon International Journal of Audiology10:3 (146-163)1 Jan 1971Closing Remarks to the Round Table on Auditory MaskingE. König Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering (1-14)30 Nov 2020Numerical analysis of the effects of ossicular chain malformations on bone conduction stimulationYu Zhao, Wen Liu, Houguang Liu, Jianhua Yang, Lei Zhou and Xinsheng Huang Volume 12Issue 4December 1969Pages: 725-746 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library HistoryReceived: Nov 5, 1968 Published in issue: Dec 1, 1969PubMed ID: 5387428 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & PermissionsCopyright © 1969 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...