Cargando…
A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level
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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PAGEPress Publications, Pavia, Italy
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5337818/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28286636 http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2017.161 |
_version_ | 1782512445227532288 |
---|---|
author | Keesling, Devan A. Parker, Jordan Paige Sanchez, Jason Tait |
author_facet | Keesling, Devan A. Parker, Jordan Paige Sanchez, Jason Tait |
author_sort | Keesling, Devan A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5337818 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | PAGEPress Publications, Pavia, Italy |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53378182017-03-10 A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level Keesling, Devan A. Parker, Jordan Paige Sanchez, Jason Tait Audiol Res Article 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. PAGEPress Publications, Pavia, Italy 2017-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5337818/ /pubmed/28286636 http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2017.161 Text en ©Copyright D.A. Keesling et al., 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Article Keesling, Devan A. Parker, Jordan Paige Sanchez, Jason Tait A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level |
title | A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level |
title_full | A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level |
title_fullStr | A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level |
title_short | A Comparison of Commercially Available Auditory Brainstem Response Stimuli at a Neurodiagnostic Intensity Level |
title_sort | comparison of commercially available auditory brainstem response stimuli at a neurodiagnostic intensity level |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5337818/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28286636 http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/audiores.2017.161 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT keeslingdevana acomparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel AT parkerjordanpaige acomparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel AT sanchezjasontait acomparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel AT keeslingdevana comparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel AT parkerjordanpaige comparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel AT sanchezjasontait comparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel |