↓ Skip to main content

Factors That Introduce Intrasubject Variability Into Ear-Canal Absorbance Measurements

Overview of attention for article published in Ear and hearing (Print), July 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors That Introduce Intrasubject Variability Into Ear-Canal Absorbance Measurements
Published in
Ear and hearing (Print), July 2013
DOI 10.1097/aud.0b013e31829cfd64
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan E. Voss, Stefan Stenfelt, Stephen T. Neely, John J. Rosowski

Abstract

Wideband immittance measures can be useful in analyzing acoustic sound flow through the ear and also have diagnostic potential for the identification of conductive hearing loss as well as causes of conductive hearing loss. To interpret individual measurements, the variability in test–retest data must be described and quantified. Contributors to variability in ear-canal absorbance–based measurements are described in this article. These include assumptions related to methodologies and issues related to the probe fit within the ear and potential acoustic leaks. Evidence suggests that variations in ear-canal cross-sectional area or measurement location are small relative to variability within a population. Data are shown to suggest that the determination of the Thévenin equivalent of the ER-10C probe introduces minimal variability and is independent of the foam ear tip itself. It is suggested that acoustic leaks in the coupling of the ear tip to the ear canal lead to substantial variations and that this issue needs further work in terms of potential criteria to identify an acoustic leak. In addition, test–retest data from the literature are reviewed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 31%
Engineering 7 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Ear and hearing (Print)
#1,521
of 2,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,449
of 206,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ear and hearing (Print)
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,008 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 206,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.