scholarly journals Cochlear Microphonic and Summating Potential Responses from Click-Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses in High-Risk and Normal Infants

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (05) ◽  
pp. 427-442
Author(s):  
Lisa L. Hunter ◽  
Chelsea M. Blankenship ◽  
Rebekah G. Gunter ◽  
Douglas H. Keefe ◽  
M. Patrick Feeney ◽  
...  

AbstractExamination of cochlear and neural potentials is necessary to assess sensory and neural status in infants, especially those cared for in neonatal intensive care units (NICU) who have high rates of hyperbilirubinemia and thus are at risk for auditory neuropathy (AN).The purpose of this study was to determine whether recording parameters commonly used in click-evoked auditory brain stem response (ABR) are useful for recording cochlear microphonic (CM) and Wave I in infants at risk for AN. Specifically, we analyzed CM, summating potential (SP), and Waves I, III, and V. The overall aim was to compare latencies and amplitudes of evoked responses in infants cared for in NICUs with infants in a well-baby nursery (WBN), both of which passed newborn hearing screening.This is a prospective study in which infants who passed ABR newborn hearing screening were grouped based on their birth history (WBN and NICU). All infants had normal hearing status when tested with diagnostic ABR at about one month of age, corrected for prematurity.Thirty infants (53 ears) from the WBN [mean corrected age at test = 5.0 weeks (wks.)] and thirty-two infants (59 ears) from the NICU (mean corrected age at test = 5.7 wks.) with normal hearing were included in this study. In addition, two infants were included as comparative case studies, one that was diagnosed with AN and another case that was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL).Diagnostic ABR, including click and tone-burst air- and bone-conduction stimuli were recorded. Peak Waves I, III, and V; SP; and CM latency and amplitude (peak to trough) were measured to determine if there were differences in ABR and electrocochleography (ECochG) variables between WBN and NICU infants.No significant group differences were found between WBN and NICU groups for ABR waveforms, CM, or SP, including amplitude and latency values. The majority (75%) of the NICU group had hyperbilirubinemia, but overall, they did not show evidence of effects in their ECochG or ABR responses when tested at about one-month corrected age. These data may serve as a normative sample for NICU and well infant ECochG and ABR latencies at one-month corrected age. Two infant case studies, one diagnosed with AN and another with SNHL demonstrated the complexity of using ECochG and otoacoustic emissions to assess the risk of AN in individual cases.CM and SPs can be readily measured using standard click stimuli in both well and NICU infants. Normative ranges for latency and amplitude are useful for interpreting ECochG and ABR components. Inclusion of ECochG and ABR tests in a test battery that also includes otoacoustic emission and acoustic reflex tests may provide a more refined assessment of the risks of AN and SNHL in infants.

2007 ◽  
Vol 135 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 264-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Snezana Babac ◽  
Dragoslava Djeric ◽  
Zoran Ivankovic

Introduction: Prevalence of sensorineural hearing loss is 1-3 per 1,000 newborns. Transient evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) and automated auditory brain stem responses (AABR) are most frequently used methods in newborn hearing screening programmes. Objective. The aim of this study was to examine hearing function in newborns with and without risk factors for hearing loss. We investigated accuracy and feasibility of two automated technologies: transient otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and auditory brain stem response (AABR) in early detection of hearing loss. Method. In prospective study, 907 newborns were tested on both ears with transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE). If results were "refer", we performed automated brain stem response (AABR). Two stage screening protocols were used with two screening technologies (TEOAE, AABR). Results. Results showed screening pass of 86.3% of the newborns in the first protocol and 99.3% in the second. Six (0.7%) newborns had positive screening results for hearing loss. They were referred for additional audolologic tests (otoacoustic emissions, tympanometry, and auditory brain stem response) to confirm or exclude hearing loss. Audiologic examination was performed up to the third month of life. We confirmed unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in two babies. Average test time per ear was 21.3?19.4 s for TEOAE and 135.3?67.9 s for AABR. Conclusion TEOAE, AABR tests are confidential, noninvasive and feasible methods and can help to detect hearing impairment.


2009 ◽  
Vol 73 (12) ◽  
pp. 1691-1695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Ohl ◽  
Liliane Dornier ◽  
Cécile Czajka ◽  
Jean-Claude Chobaut ◽  
Laurent Tavernier

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Barker ◽  
Marci M. Lesperance ◽  
Paul R. Kileny

The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and utility of distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) and auditory brain stem response (ABR) testing as screening methodologies suitable for universal application at a large birthing hospital. Five hundred sixty-nine neonates (1184 ears) without risk indicators for hearing loss underwent DPOAE and ABR screening before hospital discharge at birth. All ears (100%) passed the ABR screening. DPOAE results were categorized on the basis of the number of frequencies at which emissions were obtained as well as presence versus absence of a replicated response at each test frequency. Pass and refer rates varied widely, on the basis of whether the presence of DPOAE response at 2000 Hz or replication were required. With the most stringent criteria, only 64.44% of ears passed, whereas with the least stringent criteria 88.94% passed. Given that 100% of ears passed according to the gold standard of the ABR screening, these results indicate false-positive rates ranging from 11% to 35% by DPOAE screening. This discrepancy in pass and refer rates when various criteria are applied indicates the need for standardization and further comparison of appropriate pass criteria for newborn hearing screening programs.


1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Terrey Oliver Penn ◽  
Susan E. Abbott

1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Marie Tharpe ◽  
Ellen Wright Clayton

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document