OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of two different electrode montages (ipsilateral: reference to mastoid and vertical: reference to nape of neck) to the ABR results recorded using a level-specific (LS)-CE-Chirp® in normally hearing subjects at multiple intensities levels. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental and repeated measure study designs were applied in this study. Two different stopping criteria were used, (1) a fixed-signal averaging 4000 sweeps and, (2) a minimum quality indicator of Fmp = 3.1 with a minimum of 800 sweeps. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-nine normally hearing adults (18 females, 11 male) participated. RESULTS: Wave V amplitudes were significantly larger in the LS CE-Chirp® recorded from the vertical montage than the ipsilateral montage. Waves I and III amplitudes were significantly larger from the ipsilateral LS CE-Chirp® than from the other montages and stimulus combinations. The differences in the quality of the ABR recording between the vertical and ipsilateral montages were marginal. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the result suggested that the vertical LS CE-Chirp® ABR had a high potential for a threshold-seeking application, because it produced a higher wave V amplitude. The Ipsilateral LS CE-Chirp® ABR, on the other hand, might also have a high potential for the site of lesion application, because it produced larger waves I and III amplitudes.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of two different electrode montages (ipsilateral: reference to mastoid and vertical: reference to nape of neck) to the ABR results recorded using a level-specific (LS)-CE-Chirp® in normally hearing subjects at multiple intensities levels. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental and repeated measure study designs were applied in this study. Two different stopping criteria were used, (1) a fixed-signal averaging 4000 sweeps and, (2) a minimum quality indicator of Fmp = 3.1 with a minimum of 800 sweeps. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-nine normally hearing adults (18 females, 11 male) participated. RESULTS: Wave V amplitudes were significantly larger in the LS CE-Chirp® recorded from the vertical montage than the ipsilateral montage. Waves I and III amplitudes were significantly larger from the ipsilateral LS CE-Chirp® than from the other montages and stimulus combinations. The differences in the quality of the ABR recording between the vertical and ipsilateral montages were marginal. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the result suggested that the vertical LS CE-Chirp® ABR had a high potential for a threshold-seeking application, because it produced a higher wave V amplitude. The Ipsilateral LS CE-Chirp® ABR, on the other hand, might also have a high potential for the site of lesion application, because it produced larger waves I and III amplitudes.