Literature DB >> 16377993

Threshold prediction using the auditory steady-state response and the tone burst auditory brain stem response: a within-subject comparison.

Tiffany A Johnson1, Carolyn J Brown.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy with which auditory steady-state response (ASSR) and tone burst auditory brain stem response (ABR) thresholds predict behavioral thresholds, using a within-subjects design. Because the spectra of the stimuli used to evoke the ABR and the ASSR differ, it was hypothesized that the predictive accuracy also would differ, particularly in subjects with steeply sloping hearing losses.
DESIGN: ASSR and ABR thresholds were recorded in a group of 14 adults with normal hearing, 10 adults with flat, sensorineural hearing losses, and 10 adults with steeply sloping, high-frequency, sensorineural hearing losses. Evoked-potential thresholds were recorded at 1, 1.5, and 2 kHz and were compared with behavioral, pure-tone thresholds. The predictive accuracy of two ABR protocols was evaluated: Blackman-gated tone bursts and linear-gated tone bursts presented in a background of notched noise. Two ASSR stimulation protocols also were evaluated: 100% amplitude-modulated (AM) sinusoids and 100% AM plus 25% frequency-modulated (FM) sinusoids.
RESULTS: The results suggested there was no difference in the accuracy with which either ABR protocol predicted behavioral threshold, nor was there any difference in the predictive accuracy of the two ASSR protocols. On average, ABR thresholds were recorded 3 dB closer to behavioral threshold than ASSR thresholds. However, in the subjects with the most steeply sloping hearing losses, ABR thresholds were recorded as much as 25 dB below behavioral threshold, whereas ASSR thresholds were never recorded more than 5 dB below behavioral threshold, which may reflect more spread of excitation for the ABR than for the ASSR. In contrast, the ASSR overestimated behavioral threshold in two subjects with normal hearing, where the ABR provided a more accurate prediction of behavioral threshold.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the ABR and the ASSR provided reasonably accurate predictions of behavioral threshold across the three subject groups. There was no evidence that the predictive accuracy of the ABR evoked using Blackman-gated tone bursts differed from the predictive accuracy observed when linear-gated tone bursts were presented in conjunction with notched noise. Similarly, there was no evidence that the predictive accuracy of the AM ASSR differed from the AM/FM ASSR. In general, ABR thresholds were recorded at levels closer to behavioral threshold than the ASSR. For certain individuals with steeply sloping hearing losses, the ASSR may be a more accurate predictor of behavioral thresholds; however, the ABR may be a more appropriate choice when predicting behavioral thresholds in a population where the incidence of normal hearing is expected to be high.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16377993     DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000188105.75872.a3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  18 in total

1.  The relationship of audibility and the development of canonical babbling in young children with hearing impairment.

Authors:  Sandie M Bass-Ringdahl
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2010-05-10

2.  Using a combination of click- and tone burst-evoked auditory brain stem response measurements to estimate pure-tone thresholds.

Authors:  Michael P Gorga; Tiffany A Johnson; Jan R Kaminski; Kathryn L Beauchaine; Cassie A Garner; Stephen T Neely
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Auditory steady-state responses for estimating moderate hearing loss.

Authors:  DeWet Swanepoel; Hettie Erasmus
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2007-05-09       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Relationship between pure tone audiometry and tone burst auditory brainstem response at low frequencies gated with Blackman window.

Authors:  Andrea Canale; Federico Dagna; Michelangelo Lacilla; Elena Piumetto; Roberto Albera
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-08-04       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Comparison of pure tone audiometry and auditory steady-state responses in subjects with normal hearing and hearing loss.

Authors:  Ali Ozdek; Mahmut Karacay; Guleser Saylam; Emel Tatar; Nurdan Aygener; Mehmet Hakan Korkmaz
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Age-related changes in the relationship between auditory brainstem responses and envelope-following responses.

Authors:  Aravindakshan Parthasarathy; Jyotishka Datta; Julie Ann Luna Torres; Charneka Hopkins; Edward L Bartlett
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-05-21

7.  Auditory steady-state response and auditory brainstem response thresholds in children.

Authors:  DeWet Swanepoel; Shamim Ebrahim
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-06-17       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Towards a Diagnosis of Cochlear Neuropathy with Envelope Following Responses.

Authors:  Luke A Shaheen; Michelle D Valero; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-09-01

9.  Hyaluronan up-regulation is linked to renal dysfunction and hearing loss induced by silver nanoparticles.

Authors:  Hao Feng; Ilmari Pyykkö; Jing Zou
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  Hearing threshold prediction with Auditory Steady State Responses and estimation of correction functions to compensate for differences with behavioral data, in adult subjects. Part 1: Audera and CHARTR EP devices.

Authors:  Stavros Hatzopoulos; Joseph Petruccelli; Lech Śliwa; Wiesław W Jędrzejczak; Krzysztof Kochanek; Henryk Skarżyński
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2012-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.