Next Article in Journal
A Retrospective Study of the Clinical Characteristics and Post-Treatment Hearing Outcome in Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Previous Article in Journal
Multicentre Evaluation of the Naída CI Q70 Sound Processor: Feedback from Cochlear Implant Users and Professionals
 
 
Audiology Research is published by MDPI from Volume 10 Issue 2 (2020). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with PAGEPress.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level

by
Devan A. Keesling
1,
Jordan Paige Parker
1 and
Jason Tait Sanchez
1,2,3,*
1
Roxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
2
The Hugh Knowles Hearing Research Center, School of Communication, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
3
Department of Neurobiology and Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Audiol. Res. 2017, 7(1), 161; https://doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2017.161
Submission received: 2 August 2016 / Revised: 6 January 2017 / Accepted: 7 January 2017 / Published: 1 February 2017

Abstract

iChirp-evoked auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) yield a larger wave V amplitude at low intensity levels than traditional broadband click stimuli, providing a reliable estimation of hearing sensitivity. However, advantages of iChirp stimulation at high intensity levels are unknown. We tested to see if high-intensity (i.e., 85 dBnHL) iChirp stimulation results in larger and more reliable ABR waveforms than click. Using the commercially available Intelligent Hearing System SmartEP platform, we recorded ABRs from 43 normal hearing young adults. We report that absolute peak latencies were more variable for iChirp and were ~3 ms longer: the latter of which is simply due to the temporal duration of the signal. Interpeak latencies were slightly shorter for iChirp and were most evident between waves I-V. Interestingly, click responses were easier to identify and peak-to-trough amplitudes for waves I, III and V were significantly larger than iChirp. These differences were not due to residual noise levels. We speculate that high intensity iChirp stimulation reduces neural synchrony and conclude that for retrocochlear evaluations, click stimuli should be used as the standard for ABR neurodiagnostic testing.
Keywords: auditory brainstem response; chirp; click; electrophysiology; iChirp; neural synchrony; neurodiagnostic testing auditory brainstem response; chirp; click; electrophysiology; iChirp; neural synchrony; neurodiagnostic testing

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Keesling, D.A.; Parker, J.P.; Sanchez, J.T. A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level. Audiol. Res. 2017, 7, 161. https://doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2017.161

AMA Style

Keesling DA, Parker JP, Sanchez JT. A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level. Audiology Research. 2017; 7(1):161. https://doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2017.161

Chicago/Turabian Style

Keesling, Devan A., Jordan Paige Parker, and Jason Tait Sanchez. 2017. "A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level" Audiology Research 7, no. 1: 161. https://doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2017.161

APA Style

Keesling, D. A., Parker, J. P., & Sanchez, J. T. (2017). A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level. Audiology Research, 7(1), 161. https://doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2017.161

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop