BACKGROUND: the suppression effect with contralateral white noise observed in the brainstem auditory evoked potential can be influenced by the efferent auditory system. AIM: to evaluate the suppression effect with contralateral white noise in the Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential of individuals with normal hearing. METHODS: 25 individuals, ranging in age from 18 to 30 years, of both genders, were submitted to a clinical history questionnaire, inspection of the external auditory canal, conventional audiometry, speech audiometry and acoustic immittance measurements. Only individuals with normal hearing thresholds were selected. The selected individuals underwent brainstem auditory evoked potential testing with and without contralateral white noise. RESULTS: a significant statistical difference was observed between the situations with and without contralateral white noise, for wave I amplitude and waves III and V latencies. No statistical differences were observed for the interpeak latencies. CONCLUSION: the present study indicated increased latencies and reduced amplitudes of waves I, III and V with contralateral noise, when comparing the situations with and without noise. These results suggest a possible influence of the efferent auditory system on the response modulation of Brainstem auditory evoked potential when contralateral white noise is used.
BACKGROUND: the suppression effect with contralateral white noise observed in the brainstem auditory evoked potential can be influenced by the efferent auditory system. AIM: to evaluate the suppression effect with contralateral white noise in the Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential of individuals with normal hearing. METHODS: 25 individuals, ranging in age from 18 to 30 years, of both genders, were submitted to a clinical history questionnaire, inspection of the external auditory canal, conventional audiometry, speech audiometry and acoustic immittance measurements. Only individuals with normal hearing thresholds were selected. The selected individuals underwent brainstem auditory evoked potential testing with and without contralateral white noise. RESULTS: a significant statistical difference was observed between the situations with and without contralateral white noise, for wave I amplitude and waves III and V latencies. No statistical differences were observed for the interpeak latencies. CONCLUSION: the present study indicated increased latencies and reduced amplitudes of waves I, III and V with contralateral noise, when comparing the situations with and without noise. These results suggest a possible influence of the efferent auditory system on the response modulation of Brainstem auditory evoked potential when contralateral white noise is used.