Comparing human electrocochleography responses to click and chirp stimuli
-
Minoo Karimi
,
Mohammad-Ebrahim Mahdavi-Zafarghandi
,
Homa Zarrinkoob
,
Mozhdeh Safavi
,
Seyyed Mehdi Tabatabaee
Abstract
Background and Aim: It is not known how electrocochleography components of action potentials (AP) and summating potentials (SP) are changed in response to CE-chirp stimulus using extratympanic electrodes. This study was done for comparing summating potentials and action potentials specifications in response to CE-chirp and click stimuli.
Methods: Electrocochleography components of action potentials and summating potentials were recorded in 16 normal hearing subjects (8 men and 8 women) aged 22-30 years (mean: 26.7 with SD 2.5 years) with audiometric (250-8000 Hz) hearing thresholds of 15 dB HL or better in response to click and CE-chirp stimulus at 90 dB nHL. Amplitude, duration, latency and area of summating potentials and action potentials and SP/AP amplitude and area ratios were compared.
Results: Among the measured parameters, action potentials amplitude in response to CE-chirp stimulus (0.41 with SD 0.26 µV) was significantly smaller than action potentials amplitude in response to click (0.61 with SD 0.29 µV) stimulus (p<0.005). Relative frequency of detecting summating potentials in response to CE-chirp (68.7%) was lower than (100%) click (p<0.005).
Conclusion: Recording electrocochleography component of summating potentials and action potentials with CE-chirp stimulus at high intensity level in normal hearing individuals shows no advantage over click stimulus. Small amplitude of summating potentials as a major problem of extratympanic electrocochleography cannot be solved using CE-chirp stimulus.
2. Al-momani MO, Ferraro JA, Gajewski BJ, Ator G. Improved sensitivity of electrocochleography in the diagnosis of Meniere's disease. Int J Audiol. 2009;48(11):811-9.
3. Aso S, Watanabe Y. Electrocochleography in the diagnosis of delayed endolymphatic hydrops. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1994;511:87-90.
4. Freeman SRM, Sanli H, Gibson WPR. Intraoperative electrocochleography for monitoring during stapes surgery. Int Adv Otol. 2009;5(2):229-36.
5. Santarelli R, Arslan E. Electrocochleography in auditory neuropathy. Hear Res. 2002;170(1-2):32-47.
6. Hall JW. New handbook of auditory evoked responses. 1st ed. Boston: Pearson; 2007.
7. Hall JW, Swanepoel DW. Objective assessment of hearing. 1st ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing, Inc; 2009.
8. Dau T, Wegner O, Mellert V, Kollmeier B. Auditory brainstem responses with optimized chirp signals compensating basilar-membrane dispersion. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;107(3):1530-40.
9. Cebulla M, Elberling C. Auditory brain stem responses evoked by different chirps based on different delay models. J Am Acad Audiol. 2010;21(7):452-60.
10. Elberling C, Callø J, Don M. Evaluating auditory brainstem responses to different chirp stimuli at three levels of stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(1):215-23.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Chertoff M, Lichtenhan J, Willis M. Click- and chirp-evoked human compound action potentials. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;127(5):2992-6.
14. 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.
| Issue | Vol 23 No 3 (2014) | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Electrocochleography summating potential action potential chirp click | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
