Cargando…

LS CE-Chirp(®) vs. Click in the neuroaudiological diagnosis by ABR()

INTRODUCTION: The chirp stimulus was developed seeking to counterbalance the delay of the sound wave on its journey through the cochlea, allowing the hair cells to depolarize at the same time. The result is a simultaneous stimulation providing better neural synchrony and, consequently, the recording...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cargnelutti, Michelle, Cóser, Pedro Luis, Biaggio, Eliara Pinto Vieira
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27297956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.04.018
_version_ 1784783298685304832
author Cargnelutti, Michelle
Cóser, Pedro Luis
Biaggio, Eliara Pinto Vieira
author_facet Cargnelutti, Michelle
Cóser, Pedro Luis
Biaggio, Eliara Pinto Vieira
author_sort Cargnelutti, Michelle
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The chirp stimulus was developed seeking to counterbalance the delay of the sound wave on its journey through the cochlea, allowing the hair cells to depolarize at the same time. The result is a simultaneous stimulation providing better neural synchrony and, consequently, the recording of responses with greater amplitudes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the absolute latency of waves I, III and V, the interpeak intervals I–III, III–V and I–V, amplitude values of wave V and its association with the amplitude of wave I, and the interaural difference V–V in the auditory brainstem response (ABR) using Click and LS CE-Chirp(®) stimuli to determine whether the responses evoked by LS CE-Chirp(®) could be applied to neuroaudiological diagnosis. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with 30 normal-hearing individuals. The parameters used were: intensity of 85 dBnHL, alternating polarity; 17.1 stimuli/s and 100–3000 Hz filters. RESULTS: The absolute latencies of waves I, III and V observed with LS CE-Chirp(®) and click did not show significant differences. Significantly higher amplitudes of wave V were observed with the LS CE-Chirp(®). The interaural difference between the wave V latencies between stimuli showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: The LS CE-Chirp(®) stimulus was shown to be as efficient as the click to capture ABR at high levels of stimulation, with the advantage of producing greater-amplitude V waves.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9444743
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94447432022-09-09 LS CE-Chirp(®) vs. Click in the neuroaudiological diagnosis by ABR() Cargnelutti, Michelle Cóser, Pedro Luis Biaggio, Eliara Pinto Vieira Braz J Otorhinolaryngol Original Article INTRODUCTION: The chirp stimulus was developed seeking to counterbalance the delay of the sound wave on its journey through the cochlea, allowing the hair cells to depolarize at the same time. The result is a simultaneous stimulation providing better neural synchrony and, consequently, the recording of responses with greater amplitudes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the absolute latency of waves I, III and V, the interpeak intervals I–III, III–V and I–V, amplitude values of wave V and its association with the amplitude of wave I, and the interaural difference V–V in the auditory brainstem response (ABR) using Click and LS CE-Chirp(®) stimuli to determine whether the responses evoked by LS CE-Chirp(®) could be applied to neuroaudiological diagnosis. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with 30 normal-hearing individuals. The parameters used were: intensity of 85 dBnHL, alternating polarity; 17.1 stimuli/s and 100–3000 Hz filters. RESULTS: The absolute latencies of waves I, III and V observed with LS CE-Chirp(®) and click did not show significant differences. Significantly higher amplitudes of wave V were observed with the LS CE-Chirp(®). The interaural difference between the wave V latencies between stimuli showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: The LS CE-Chirp(®) stimulus was shown to be as efficient as the click to capture ABR at high levels of stimulation, with the advantage of producing greater-amplitude V waves. Elsevier 2016-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC9444743/ /pubmed/27297956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.04.018 Text en © 2016 Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. on behalf of Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Cargnelutti, Michelle
Cóser, Pedro Luis
Biaggio, Eliara Pinto Vieira
LS CE-Chirp(®) vs. Click in the neuroaudiological diagnosis by ABR()
title LS CE-Chirp(®) vs. Click in the neuroaudiological diagnosis by ABR()
title_full LS CE-Chirp(®) vs. Click in the neuroaudiological diagnosis by ABR()
title_fullStr LS CE-Chirp(®) vs. Click in the neuroaudiological diagnosis by ABR()
title_full_unstemmed LS CE-Chirp(®) vs. Click in the neuroaudiological diagnosis by ABR()
title_short LS CE-Chirp(®) vs. Click in the neuroaudiological diagnosis by ABR()
title_sort ls ce-chirp(®) vs. click in the neuroaudiological diagnosis by abr()
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27297956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.04.018
work_keys_str_mv AT cargneluttimichelle lscechirpvsclickintheneuroaudiologicaldiagnosisbyabr
AT coserpedroluis lscechirpvsclickintheneuroaudiologicaldiagnosisbyabr
AT biaggioeliarapintovieira lscechirpvsclickintheneuroaudiologicaldiagnosisbyabr