Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol.  2016 Sep;9(3):282-283. 10.21053/ceo.2015.01760.

The Dominance of Ossicular Route in Sound Transmission

• Zakaria MN
• Lih AC
• Wahab NA

• KMID: 2353629
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.21053/ceo.2015.01760

Abstract

No abstract available.

Reference

1. Park H, Hong SN, Kim HS, Han JJ, Chung J, Seo MW, et al. Determinants of conductive hearing loss in tympanic membrane perforation. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; Jun. 8(2):92–6.

2. Anthony WP, Harrison CW. Tympanic membrane perforation: effect on audiogram. Arch Otolaryngol. 1972; Jun. 95(6):506–10.

3. Voss SE, Rosowski JJ, Merchant SN, Peake WT. How do tympanicmembrane perforations affect human middle-ear sound transmission? Acta Otolaryngol. 2001; Jan. 121(2):169–73.

4. Mehta RP, Rosowski JJ, Voss SE, O’Neil E, Merchant SN. Determinants of hearing loss in perforations of the tympanic membrane. Otol Neurotol. 2006; Feb. 27(2):136–43.

5. Voss SE, Rosowski JJ, Merchant SN, Peake WT. Non-ossicular signal transmission in human middle ears: experimental assessment of the “acoustic route” with perforated tympanic membranes. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; Oct. 122(4):2135–53.

6. Bhusal CL, Guragain RP, Shrivastav RP. Frequency dependence of hearing loss with perforations. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2007; Oct-Dec. 46(168):180–4.