Journal of Applied Physiology Ad Instruments
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol (January 4, 2002). doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01163.2001
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
92/6/2521    most recent
01163.2001v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zimatore, G.
Right arrow Articles by Colosimo, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Zimatore, G.
Right arrow Articles by Colosimo, A.

Articles in PresS, published online ahead of print January 4, 2002
J Appl Physiol, 10.1152/jap.01163.2001
Submitted on November 26, 2001
Accepted on December 31, 2001

Comparison of Transient Otoacoustic Emission (TEOAE) Responses from Neonatal and Adult Ears

Giovanna Zimatore1, Stavros Hatzopoulos1, Alessandro Giuliani1, Alessandro Martini1, and Alfredo Colosimo1*

1 Human Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Rome, Rome, Italy

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: colosimo{at}caspur.it.

TEOAE responses from neonatal (age: 48 hours) and adult subjects (age: 26.6±10.0 years) were analyzed by the combined use of Recurrence Quantification Analysis and Singular Value Decomposition. The data from the two age groups showed significant differences and similarities. The neonatal responses presented less deterministic structures than the adults, in terms of recurrent dynamical features. In both data sets the same high level of individual-specific dynamical features was observed. The results from the Single Value Decomposition analysis suggest that a large percentage of variability in all the analyzed responses can be explained by 4 to 5 essential modes. This number is lower than that observed in simulated TEOAE responses generated by a 5-component gammatone model. A possible explanation is presented, based on simple instrumental and morpho-anatomical considerations.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Biol Res NursHome page
A. M. Schumacher, J. P. Zbilut, C. L. Webber Jr., D. W. Schwertz, and M. R. Piano
Detection of cardiac variability in the isolated rat heart.
Biol Res Nurs, July 1, 2006; 8(1): 55 - 66.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
G. Zimatore, A. Giuliani, S. Hatzopoulos, A. Martini, and A. Colosimo
Otoacoustic emissions at different click intensities: invariant and subject-dependent features
J Appl Physiol, December 1, 2003; 95(6): 2299 - 2305.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 1966 by the American Physiological Society.