Comments on ‘Auditory Brainstem Responses to Middle- and Low-Frequency Tone Pips’ [Mauriziet al., Audiology23: 75-84, 1984]

1986 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Kileny
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Responses ◽  
Frequency Tone

Auditory Brainstem Responses to Middle- and Low-Frequency Tone Pips

1984 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Maurizi ◽  
G. Paludetti ◽  
F. Ottaviani ◽  
M. Rosignoli
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Responses ◽  
Frequency Tone

scholarly journals Aerial low-frequency hearing in captive and free-ranging harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) measured using auditory brainstem responses

2016 ◽  
Vol 202 (12) ◽  
pp. 859-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Lucke ◽  
Gordon D. Hastie ◽  
Kerstin Ternes ◽  
Bernie McConnell ◽  
Simon Moss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Phoca Vitulina ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Responses ◽  
Harbour Seals ◽  
Free Ranging

scholarly journals Auditory Brainstem Responses in Cases with Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Low Frequency Tones.

1994 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-141
Author(s):  
Toshifumi Sakata ◽  
Akihide Imamura ◽  
Nobuhide Imamura ◽  
Yuji Suoya ◽  
Kimio Shiraishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Responses

Bone conduction auditory brainstem responses in infants

2004 ◽  
Vol 118 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. E. Campbell ◽  
C. M. Harris ◽  
S. Hendricks ◽  
T. Sirimanna
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Bone Conduction ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Paediatric Population ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Responses ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
Narrow Dynamic Range

The contribution of air conduction auditory brainstem response (AC-ABR) testing in the paediatric population is widely accepted in clinical audiology. However, this does not allow for differentiation between conductive and sensorineural hearing loss. The purpose ofthis paper is to review the role of bone conduction auditory brainstem responses (BC-ABR). It is argued that despite such technical difficulties as a narrow dynamic range, masking dilemmas, stimulus artifact and low frequency underestimation of hearing loss, considerable evidence exists to suggest that BC-ABR testing provides an important contribution in the accurate assessmentof hearing loss in infants. Modification of the BC-ABR protocol is discussed and the technical difficulties that may arise are addressed, permitting BC-ABR to be used as a tool in the differential diagnosis between conductive and sensorineural hearing. Two relevant case studies are presented to highlight the growing importance of appropriate management in early identification of hearing loss. It can be concluded that BC-ABR should be adopted as a routine clinical diagnostic tool.

Development of Low-Frequency Tone Burst versus the Click Auditory Brainstem Response

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (02) ◽  
pp. 114-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond M. Hurley ◽  
Annette Hurley ◽  
Charles I. Berlin
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Tone Burst ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Similar Data ◽  
Frequency Sensitivity ◽  
Frequency Tone ◽  
Brainstem Response ◽  
Threshold Testing ◽  
Wave Latency

Often ABR threshold testing employs clicks to assess high-frequency hearing, and low-frequency tone bursts to assess low-frequency sensitivity. While a maturation effect has been shown for click stimuli, similar data are lacking for low-frequency toneburst stimuli. Thus, 305 infants ranging in conceptional age (CA) from 33 weeks to 74 weeks were tested. Absolute latencies were measured for wave V at 55, 35, and 25 dB nHL in response to a click and for wave V500 in response to a 500 Hz tone burst. Major wave latency in response to 500 Hz tone bursts decreases with age and do not stabilize by 70 weeks CA. Likewise, waves III and V latencies in response to clicks decrease with age, as has been reported by others, and do not stabilize by 70 weeks CA. Wave I latency produced by clicks did not decrease with age, being mature by 33 weeks CA.

scholarly journals Vestibular Hearing and Neural Synchronization

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyede Faranak Emami ◽  
Ahmad Daneshi
Keyword(s):  
Low Frequency ◽  
Pure Tone Audiometry ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Nerve Fibers ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Responses ◽  
Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials ◽  
Fast Wave ◽  
Response Component ◽  
Neural Synchronization ◽  
Brainstem Response

Objectives. Vestibular hearing as an auditory sensitivity of the saccule in the human ear is revealed by cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMPs). The range of the vestibular hearing lies in the low frequency. Also, the amplitude of an auditory brainstem response component depends on the amount of synchronized neural activity, and the auditory nerve fibers' responses have the best synchronization with the low frequency. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate correlation between vestibular hearing using cVEMPs and neural synchronization via slow wave Auditory Brainstem Responses (sABR). Study Design. This case-control survey was consisted of twenty-two dizzy patients, compared to twenty healthy controls. Methods. Intervention comprised of Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA), Impedance acoustic metry (IA), Videonystagmography (VNG), fast wave ABR (fABR), sABR, and cVEMPs. Results. The affected ears of the dizzy patients had the abnormal findings of cVEMPs (insecure vestibular hearing) and the abnormal findings of sABR (decreased neural synchronization). Comparison of the cVEMPs at affected ears versus unaffected ears and the normal persons revealed significant differences (P<0.05). Conclusion. Safe vestibular hearing was effective in the improvement of the neural synchronization.

scholarly journals Hearing sensitivity and amplitude coding in bats are differentially shaped by echolocation calls and social calls

2021 ◽  
Vol 288 (1942) ◽  
pp. 20202600
Author(s):  
Ella Z. Lattenkamp ◽  
Martina Nagy ◽  
Markus Drexl ◽  
Sonja C. Vernes ◽  
Lutz Wiegrebe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Perception ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Auditory Brainstem ◽  
Auditory Brainstem Responses ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Communication Signals ◽  
Echolocation Calls ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Social Calls ◽  
Frequency Changes

Differences in auditory perception between species are influenced by phylogenetic origin and the perceptual challenges imposed by the natural environment, such as detecting prey- or predator-generated sounds and communication signals. Bats are well suited for comparative studies on auditory perception since they predominantly rely on echolocation to perceive the world, while their social calls and most environmental sounds have low frequencies. We tested if hearing sensitivity and stimulus level coding in bats differ between high and low-frequency ranges by measuring auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) of 86 bats belonging to 11 species. In most species, auditory sensitivity was equally good at both high- and low-frequency ranges, while amplitude was more finely coded for higher frequency ranges. Additionally, we conducted a phylogenetic comparative analysis by combining our ABR data with published data on 27 species. Species-specific peaks in hearing sensitivity correlated with peak frequencies of echolocation calls and pup isolation calls, suggesting that changes in hearing sensitivity evolved in response to frequency changes of echolocation and social calls. Overall, our study provides the most comprehensive comparative assessment of bat hearing capacities to date and highlights the evolutionary pressures acting on their sensory perception.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document