• Hearing research · Jul 2018

    Comparative Study

    Supra-threshold auditory brainstem response amplitudes in humans: Test-retest reliability, electrode montage and noise exposure.

    • Garreth Prendergast, Wenhe Tu, Hannah Guest, Rebecca E Millman, Karolina Kluk, Samuel Couth, Kevin J Munro, and Christopher J Plack.
    • Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, M13 9PL, UK. Electronic address: garreth.prendergast@manchester.ac.uk.
    • Hear. Res. 2018 Jul 1; 364: 38-47.

    AbstractThe auditory brainstem response (ABR) is a sub-cortical evoked potential in which a series of well-defined waves occur in the first 10 ms after the onset of an auditory stimulus. Wave V of the ABR, particularly wave V latency, has been shown to be remarkably stable over time in individual listeners. However, little attention has been paid to the reliability of wave I, which reflects auditory nerve activity. This ABR component has attracted interest recently, as wave I amplitude has been identified as a possible non-invasive measure of noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy. The current study aimed to determine whether ABR wave I amplitude has sufficient test-retest reliability to detect impaired auditory nerve function in an otherwise normal-hearing listener. Thirty normal-hearing females were tested, divided equally into low- and high-noise exposure groups. The stimulus was an 80 dB nHL click. ABR recordings were made from the ipsilateral mastoid and from the ear canal (using a tiptrode). Although there was some variability between listeners, wave I amplitude had high test-retest reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) comparable to that for wave V amplitude. There were slight gains in reliability for wave I amplitude when recording from the ear canal (ICC of 0.88) compared to the mastoid (ICC of 0.85). The summating potential (SP) and ratio of SP to wave I were also quantified and found to be much less reliable than measures of wave I and V amplitude. Finally, we found no significant differences in the amplitude of any wave components between low- and high-noise exposure groups. We conclude that, if the other sources of between-subject variability can be controlled, wave I amplitude is sufficiently reliable to accurately characterize individual differences in auditory nerve function.Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.