Auditory evoked potentials.

R A Ruth; P R Lambert

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1857616

Auditory evoked potentials.

R A Ruth·P R Lambert

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) have become an integral part of the current otologic/audiologic test battery. With these techniques, synchronous neural activity can be examined from the peripheral end organ of hearing up to the cortical structures responsible for audition. The clinical applications of AEPs range from their use as an indicator of auditory sensitivity in patients who either cannot or will not respond in a conventional behavioral test situation to their use in the diagnosis and monitoring of various otologic and neurologic disorders. As such, measurement of AEPs allows the clinician a unique glimpse of the auditory system.

Explore related subjects

Audiometry, Evoked Response Evoked Potentials, Auditory Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem Humans Reaction Time Journal Article Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

R A Ruth, P R Lambert. 1991. Auditory evoked potentials.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1857616/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1996

Early hearing testing of still critically ill neonates.

OBJECTIVE: To use a newly applied hearing screening technique for early measurement in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients to learn more about the high incidence of hearing loss in this population. METHODS: An automated, portable infant hearing screener that measures the auditory brain-stem response at the bedside was used at the NICU of the Hospital Nacional de Niños, San Jose, Costa Rica. Patients were evaluated early, even if they were on a ventilator. The screener tested with a 40-dB hearing level click stimulus to each ear over a bandwidth of 750 to 3000 Hz. RESULTS: During a 15-month period, 92 newborns underwent 226 auditory brain-stem response tests (range, one to six tests; mean, 2 1/2 tests). Before discharge from the NICU or death, each infant was successfully screened. Of 72 infants discharged from the hospital alive, 68 passed bilaterally and four failed bilaterally, a 6% failure rate. Of 20 infants who died, 15 failed bilaterally, a 75% failure rate. Persistent bilateral failure of the test was detectable from each infant's first test and showed an association (chi-square, P<.001) with death. The overall bilateral failure rate was 21%. CONCLUSIONS: Simple bedside auditory brain-stem response screening of all NICU infants was consistently possible regardless of clinical status, the early onset of hearing loss suggests that NICU treatment was not ototoxic and the unexpectedly high overall bilateral test failure rate resulted from the inclusion of patients who would have died untested if conventional testing had been done.

Audiometry, Evoked Response↗

PubMed1996

Neonatal hearing screening.

UNLABELLED: Severe congenital hearing impairment is an important handicap affecting 0.1% of live-born infants and 1%-2% of graduates of Neonatal Intensive Care Units. The prognosis for intellectual, emotional, language and speech development in the hearing-impaired child is improved when the diagnosis is made early and intervention is begun before the age of 6 months. The usual age at diagnosis of hearing impairment is at least 18-30 months (or even later in cases of less severe hearing impairment) where there are no screening programmes. When screening is carried out using distraction methods at the age of approximately 9 months some hearing-impaired infants are missed and those discovered are at least 15-18 months before intervention begins. Neonatal screening could give hearing-impaired children the best chances for optimal care and development. Universal neonatal hearing screening is necessary, because, when neonatal hearing screening is restricted to high risk groups 30%-50% of infants with hearing loss are not discovered. The methods available for neonatal hearing screening are discussed in this paper. CONCLUSION: In our view automated measurement of auditory brainstem responses is the most valuable method for universal neonatal hearing screening.

Audiometry, Evoked Response↗

PubMed1996

Response thresholds in electrocochleography and their relation to the pure tone audiogram.

OBJECTIVE: The relations between response thresholds obtained by 1) transtympanic (TT) and 2) extratympanic (ET) electrocochleography, and by 3) pure tone audiometry, were investigated in a population of patients with cochlear hearing loss of various types and degrees, with the prediction of audiometric from electrocochleographic thresholds as the primary focus. DESIGN: Analyses were made of the relation between TT response thresholds for tone bursts with octave frequencies from 500 to 8000 Hz and audiometric thresholds in 148 ears. Similar analyses of ET thresholds were given for a subset of 30 ears in which TT and ET physiological responses were simultaneously recorded. RESULTS: TT electrocochleographic thresholds are highly correlated with audiometric thresholds. Linear regression analysis shows that audiometric thresholds can be predicted from physiological thresholds with an error in the estimate of 11 dB. ET electrocochleography permits similar predictions but with a larger uncertainty of 16 dB. Both methods demonstrate a clear frequency specificity. As a remarkable secondary observation, it appears that electrocochleographic thresholds increase slightly less with increasing cochlear dysfunction than do pure tone thresholds. The hypothesis is elaborated that this is due to the different stimulus durations on which the two threshold measurements are based in interaction with the difference in temporal integration between normal and pathological ears. CONCLUSION: Electrocochleography is a powerful method for the objective and frequency-specific determination of cochlear response thresholds. TT recording is the preferred method, but ET recording is suitable with a larger uncertainty in the estimate. Electrocochleographic thresholds directly measure the cochlear sensitivity as such, whereas pure tone thresholds measure the combination of loss of cochlear sensitivity and of reduced temporal integration.

Audiometry, Evoked Response↗