Comparison of click and CE-chirp-evoked human auditory brainstem responses: a preliminary study
Background and Aim: CE-Chirp stimulus has been developed for stimulating more apical regions of the cochlea. Inadequacy of clinical information on the latency and amplitude characteristics of ABR evoked by CE-chirp at different levels in addition to discrepancy in identifying earlier ABR waveforms using CE-chirp stimulus are the reasons of this study.
Methods: This study was done by recoding ABR to click and broad-band CE-chirp stimuli in the right ear of 15 non-randomly selected normal-hearing individuals with age range of 20-30 years old. Frequency of recordable waves I and III, as well as threshold, amplitude, and latency of wave V were compared in response to click and CE-Chirp at 20-80 dB nHL.
Results: At 80 dB nHL, click stimulus evokes waves I and III more frequently than chirp stimulus (p=0.012 and p=0.016 respectively). At 20 and 40 dB nHL, wave V latency evoked by CE-Chirp is significantly longer than wave V latency evoked by click (p=0.012 and p=0.0001 respectively); however, at 80 dB nHL wave V latency evoked by CE-Chirp is shorter than click (p=0.0001). Wave V amplitude for CE-Chirp is significantly larger than for click at levels of 20, 40 and 60 dB nHL (p=0.0001, p=0.0001 and p=0.013 respectively). Wave V threshold is approximately 5 dB lower with CE-chirp compared to click (p=0.014).
Conclusion: Except at high levels, CE-Chirp evokes wave V with larger amplitude and lower threshold than click. Possibility of recording earlier ABR waves is reduced with CE-chirp stimulus.
2. Shore SE, Nuttall AL. High-synchrony cochlear compound action potentials evoked by rising frequency-swept tone bursts. J Acoust Soc Am. 1985;78(4):1286-95.
3. Elberling C, Don M, Cebulla M, Stürzebecher E. Auditory steady-state responses to chirp stimuli based on cochlear traveling wave delay. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;122(5):2772-85.
4. Elberling C, Don M. Auditory brainstem responses to a chirp stimulus designed from derived-band latencies in normal-hearing subjects. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008;124(5):3022-37.
5. Pedersen CB, Salomon G. Temporal integration of acoustic energy. Acta Otolaryngol. 1977;83(5-6):417-23.
6. Fobel O, Dau T. Searching for the optimal stimulus eliciting auditory brainstem responses in humans. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116(4 Pt 1):2213-22.
7. Burkard RF, Don M. The auditory brainstem response. In: Burkard RF, Eggermont JJ, Don M, editors. Auditory evoked potentials: basic principles and clinical application. 1st ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 229-53.
8. Chertoff M, Lichtenhan J, Willis M. Click- and chirp-evoked human compound action potentials. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;127(5):2992-6.
9. Elberling C, Don M. A direct approach for the design of chirp stimuli used for the recording of auditory brainstem responses. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(5):2955-64.
10. Petoe MA, Bradley AP, Wilson WJ. On chirp stimuli and neural synchrony in the suprathreshold auditory brainstem response. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(1):235-46.
11. Kristensen SG, Elberling C. Auditory brainstem responses to level-specific chirps in normal-hearing adults. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012;23(9):712-21.
12. Sininger YS. The use of auditory brainstem response in screening for hearing loss and audiometric threshold prediction. In: Burkard RF, Eggermont JJ, Don M, editors. Auditory evoked potentials: basic principles and clinical application. 1st ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 254-75.
13. Dehan CP, Jerger J. Analysis of gender differences in the auditory brainstem response. Laryngoscope. 1990;100(1):18-24.
14. Trune DR, Mitchell C, Phillips DS. The relative importance of head size, gender and age on the auditory brainstem response. Hear Res. 1988;32(2-3):165-74.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.