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...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2017-02-01
|
| Series: | Audiology Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://audiologyresearch.org/index.php/audio/article/view/161 |
| _version_ | 1818575352388124672 |
|---|---|
| author | Devan A. Keesling Jordan Paige Parker Jason Tait Sanchez |
| author_facet | Devan A. Keesling Jordan Paige Parker Jason Tait Sanchez |
| author_sort | Devan A. Keesling |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-15T00:39:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ce6b60695510472fb6ad591fbe360003 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2039-4330 2039-4349 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-15T00:39:08Z |
| publishDate | 2017-02-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Audiology Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-ce6b60695510472fb6ad591fbe3600032022-12-21T22:41:43ZengMDPI AGAudiology Research2039-43302039-43492017-02-017110.4081/audiores.2017.16199A comparison of commercially available auditory brainstem response stimuli at a neurodiagnostic intensity levelDevan A. Keesling0Jordan Paige Parker1Jason Tait Sanchez2Roxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, ILRoxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, ILRoxelyn and Richard Pepper Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders; The Hugh Knowles Hearing Research Center, School of Communication; Department of Neurobiology and Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, ILiChirp-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.https://audiologyresearch.org/index.php/audio/article/view/161Auditory brainstem responsechirpclickelectrophysiologyiChirpneural synchrony |
| spellingShingle | Devan A. Keesling Jordan Paige Parker Jason Tait Sanchez A comparison of commercially available auditory brainstem response stimuli at a neurodiagnostic intensity level Audiology Research Auditory brainstem response chirp click electrophysiology iChirp neural synchrony |
| 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 | Auditory brainstem response chirp click electrophysiology iChirp neural synchrony |
| url | https://audiologyresearch.org/index.php/audio/article/view/161 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT devanakeesling acomparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel AT jordanpaigeparker acomparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel AT jasontaitsanchez acomparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel AT devanakeesling comparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel AT jordanpaigeparker comparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel AT jasontaitsanchez comparisonofcommerciallyavailableauditorybrainstemresponsestimuliataneurodiagnosticintensitylevel |