Literature DB >> 18836669

[Steady-state responses of the auditory system: a comparison of different methods].

S Liebler1, S Hoth, P K Plinkert.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Determining the hearing threshold in children is one of the most important topics in audiology. Because the existing methods-brainstem evoked response audiometry (BERA) and cortical evoked response audiometry (CERA)-show some severe insufficiencies, it is necessary to look for improved methods. A promising approach may be amplitude modulation following responses (AMFR). In contrast to the conventional transient auditory evoked potentials, these responses show a high-frequency specificity, and they possibly allow statements about the hearing threshold in the low-frequency range. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The purpose of our study was to objectively detect the hearing threshold in normal-hearing persons of various ages. Pure-tone audiometry served as a subjective control test. For objective tests, we used the measurement of AMFR (two different systems with distinct parameters) and CERA. We compared the different methods with regard to accuracy of the determination of the hearing threshold and investigated the practicability.
RESULTS: The results showed some large deviations between the subjective hearing threshold and the objectively determined responses. The lowest deviations appeared at low frequencies. With respect to the variability of results, CERA was clearly superior to AMFR.
CONCLUSION: Despite large deviations in the responses objectively determined by AMFR, we think AMFR is suitable to close some gaps in determining objective hearing thresholds, at least at low frequencies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18836669     DOI: 10.1007/s00106-008-1694-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HNO        ISSN: 0017-6192            Impact factor:   1.284


  34 in total

1.  The use of phase in the detection of auditory steady-state responses.

Authors:  T W Picton; A Dimitrijevic; M S John; P Van Roon
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  Steady state responses to multiple amplitude-modulated tones: an optimized method to test frequency-specific thresholds in hearing-impaired children and normal-hearing subjects.

Authors:  M C Perez-Abalo; G Savio; A Torres; V Martín; E Rodríguez; L Galán
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  The amplitude modulation-following response as an audiometric tool.

Authors:  S K Griffiths; R D Chambers
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  The auditory steady-state response.

Authors:  J Jerger
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Frequency-specific audiometry using steady-state responses.

Authors:  O G Lins; T W Picton; B L Boucher; A Durieux-Smith; S C Champagne; L M Moran; M C Perez-Abalo; V Martin; G Savio
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  The role of outer hair cell damage in the loss of hearing.

Authors:  H P Zenner
Journal:  Ear Nose Throat J       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 1.697

7.  Potentials evoked by the sinusoidal modulation of the amplitude or frequency of a tone.

Authors:  T W Picton; C R Skinner; S C Champagne; A J Kellett; A C Maiste
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Computer-aided hearing threshold determination from cortical auditory evoked potentials.

Authors:  S Hoth
Journal:  Scand Audiol       Date:  1993

9.  Human slow auditory evoked potentials during natural and drug-induced sleep.

Authors:  Z S Kevanishvili; H Von Specht
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1979-09

10.  Amplitude-modulation following response (AMFR): effects of modulation rate, carrier frequency, age, and state.

Authors:  E C Levi; R C Folsom; R A Dobie
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  4 in total

1.  [On the terminology of auditory steady-state responses. What differentiates steady-state and transient potentials?].

Authors:  R Mühler
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  [Audiometric thresholds estimated by auditory steady-state responses. Influence of EEG amplitude and test duration on accuracy].

Authors:  R Mühler; T Rahne
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  [Objective frequency-specific measurement of hearing threshold using narrow-band chirp stimuli with level-adaptive simultaneous masking].

Authors:  I Baljić; M Walger
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 4.  Hearing impairment and language delay in infants: Diagnostics and genetics.

Authors:  Ruth Lang-Roth
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2014-12-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.