Predicting Pure-Tone Thresholds with Dichotic Multiple Frequency Auditory Steady State Responses

University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology (Impact Factor: 1.58). 02/2005; 16(1):5-17. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16.1.2
Source: PubMed


The accuracy of dichotic multiple frequency auditory steady state in predicting pure-tone thresholds at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4.0 kHz compared to an ABR protocol (click and tone burst at 0.5 kHz) were explored in a group of 25 hearing-impaired subjects across the degree and configuration spectrum. Mean steady state thresholds were within 14, 18, 15, and 14 dB of the pure tones at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz, compared to the tone-burst ABR at 0.5 kHz pure-tone difference of 24 dB, and a click-evoked pure-tone (2-4 kHz) difference of 9 dB. Recording time for the steady state protocol was 28 minutes (+/- 11) compared to 24 minutes (+/- 9) of the ABR protocol. Degree of loss had a significant effect on steady state; configuration of hearing loss had a limited effect. Mf ASSR predicted thresholds with relative accuracy although some configurations showed discrepancies for low-frequency estimates.

1 Follower
2 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reported are the results of meta-analyses of data derived collectively from a sample of 56 published research studies on electric response audiometry (ERA) using auditory steady-state responses (ASSRs). Several specific methodological issues were examined and hypotheses were posited to rigorously test common conclusions drawn from the ASSR literature on the accuracy of ASSR-ERA. Explanatory variables for analyses were type of population (normally hearing and hearing-impaired), type of modulation, number of sweeps acquired during response analysis, electrode montage, and modulation rate (80 vs. 40 Hz). No explanatory variables were found to be significantly related to the degree of disparity between thresholds obtained by ASSR-ERA versus behavioral audiometry in the normally hearing population. Conversely, all but one explanatory variable (i.e. electrode montage) was found to be significantly related to mean threshold differences in the hearing-impaired and combined populations. Results both substantiate some of common conclusions drawn from the literature but call others into question, helping to identify those methodological issues which appear to, or not to, significantly affect the accuracy of estimating threshold using ASSR measurement. In addition to these findings, another practical outcome of this study was the development of various summary tables of the data analysed from the literature sampled.
    International Journal of Audiology 12/2007; 46(11):692-710. DOI:10.1080/14992020701482480 · 1.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Auditory steady-state responses (ASSRs) recorded with simultaneous presentation of multiple tones modulated from 77-105 Hz exhibit frequency specificity and can be acquired with monotic or dichotic stimulation. This study examined the frequency specificity and dichotic characteristics of 40 Hz ASSRs recorded with amplitude-modulated (AM) probe tones and unmodulated (UM) or AM interfering tones in 27 normal-hearing adults. The effects on ASSR amplitudes of monotically or dichotically presented interfering tones of various frequency, modulation depth, and modulation rate were studied. Significant decreases in ASSR amplitudes occurred when the UM interfering tone was monotic, higher in frequency, and approximately within an octave of the probe tone. ASSR amplitudes were also reduced when the AM interfering tone was monotic and modulated at a lower depth and was an octave above the probe tone. Probe and interfering AM tones modulated at different rates produced similar reductions in amplitude for ASSRs acquired with monotic and dichotic stimulation. The findings of this study contribute to clarifying the carrier and temporal envelope interactions between tonal stimuli. Description of the effects of these stimulus parameters on 40 Hz ASSRs can benefit clinical applications of this technique, including evaluating auditory function in adults not capable of participating in behavioral audiometric tests.
    Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 03/2008; 19(2):101-19. DOI:10.3766/jaaa.19.2.2 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The inclusion of the auditory steady-state response (ASSR) into test-batteries for objective audiometry has allowed for clinical comparisons with the most widely used procedure, the auditory brainstem response (ABR). The current study describes ASSR and ABR thresholds for a group of infants and young children with various types and degrees of hearing loss. A sample of 48 subjects (23 female) with a mean age of 2.8+/-1.9 years SD were assessed with a comprehensive test-battery and classified according to type and degree of hearing loss. Thresholds were determined with a broadband click-evoked ABR and single frequency ASSR evoked with continuous tones (0.25-4 kHz) amplitude modulated (67-95 Hz). Mean difference scores (+/-SD) between the ABR and high frequency ASSR thresholds were 9.8 (+/-11), 3.6 (+/-12) and 10.5 (+/-12) dB at 1, 2 and 4 kHz, respectively. An ASSR mean threshold for 2-4 and 1-4 kHz compared to the ABR threshold revealed an average difference of 7 (+/-9) and 7.9 (+/-8) dB, respectively. The overall correlation between the ABR and ASSR thresholds was highest for the mean ASSR thresholds of 2-4 and 1-4 kHz (r=0.92 for both conditions). Correlations between the ABR and individual ASSR frequencies were slightly less (0.82-0.86). The average of the 2-4 kHz ASSR thresholds correlated best with the click-evoked ABR for all categories of hearing loss except for the sensorineural hearing loss category for which the 1-4 kHz ASSR average was better correlated to ABR thresholds. Findings demonstrate the reliability of verifying high frequency ASSR thresholds with a click-evoked ABR as an important cross-check in infants for whom behavioural audiometry may not be possible.
    Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 07/2008; 266(2):213-9. DOI:10.1007/s00405-008-0738-1 · 1.55 Impact Factor
Show more