Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g4pgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T06:42:09.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validation of multi-channel auditory steady-state response in adults with sensorineural hearing loss

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2008

Y-H Lin ,
P-R Chen ,
C-J Hsu  and
H-P Wu
Y-H Lin
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Buddhist Dalin Tzu Chi General Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan
P-R Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Buddhist Xindian Tzu Chi General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
C-J Hsu
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
H-P Wu*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Buddhist Xindian Tzu Chi General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan Institute of Occupational Medicine and Industrial Hygiene, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Hung-Pin Wu, Department of Otolaryngology, Buddhist Xindian Tzu Chi General Hospital, 289 Jianguo Rd, Xindian City, Taipei, Taiwan 23142. Fax: 886 2 66282500 E-mail: entgood@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

For various medico-legal and financial reasons, some patients may clinically demonstrate an exaggerated hearing loss that varies in degree, nature and laterality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether multi-channel auditory steady-state response measurement can be used as an objective test of auditory thresholds in adults with sensorineural hearing loss.

Study design and setting:

This was a prospective, comparative, experimental research design study conducted in an academic medical centre. From January to June 2007, 142 subjects (284 ears) with varying degrees of sensorineural hearing loss were included. Four commonly used frequencies (500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz) were evaluated. Both pure tone thresholds and multi-channel auditory steady-state response thresholds were obtained for each ear in all subjects. The correlation of auditory steady-state response thresholds and pure tone thresholds was assessed. The time taken for multi-channel auditory steady-state response testing was also recorded.

Results:

Results for multi-channel auditory steady-state response thresholds and pure tone thresholds were compared for each test frequency. A difference of less than 15 dB was found in 71 per cent of patients, while a difference of less than 20 dB was found in 83 per cent. Correlation between auditory steady-state response thresholds and pure tone thresholds, expressed as the correlation coefficient (r), was 0.89, 0.95, 0.96 and 0.97 at 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz, respectively. The strength of the relationship between auditory steady-state response thresholds and pure tone thresholds increased with increasing frequency and increasing degree of hearing loss. The recorded auditory steady-state response thresholds were used to calculate regression lines predicting pure tone threshold results. The mean estimated pure tone thresholds calculated from these regression lines were all within 10 dB of the actual recorded pure tone thresholds. The average multi-channel auditory steady-state response test duration was 42 minutes per patient.

Conclusion:

Measurement of multi-channel auditory steady-state response could be a powerful, convenient electro-physiological examination with which to objectively certify clinical hearing impairment in adults.

Keywords

DeafnessPure Tone AudiometryEvoked Response AudiometryHearing Tests

Information

Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 123 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 38 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Martin, NA. Psychogenic deafness. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1946;55:81–89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Rintelmann, WF, Schwann, SA, Blakley, BW. Pseudohypacusis. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1991;24:381–90Google Scholar
3 Qiu, WW, Yin, SS, Stucker, FJ, Welsh, LW. Current evaluation of pseudohypacusis: strategies and classification. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1998;107:638–47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Gould, SR, Hunsaker, DH. Pseudohypacusis in a military population. Ear Nose Throat J 1991;70:710–12Google Scholar
5 Gleason, WJ. Psychological characteristics of the audiologically inconsistent patient. Arch Otolaryngol Hand Neck Surg 1958;68:42–6Google Scholar
6 Barrs, DM, Althoff, LK, Krueger, WW, Olsson, JE. Work-related, noise-induced hearing loss: evaluation including evoked potential audiometry. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994;110:177–84Google Scholar
7 Chaiklin, JB. A descending LOT-Bekesy screening test for functional hearing loss. J Speech Hear Disord 1990;55:67–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8 Alberti, PW. Non-organic hearing loss in adults. In: Beagley, HA, ed. Audiology and Audiological Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1981;910–31Google Scholar
9 Brookhouser, PE, Gorga, MP, Kelly, WJ. Auditory brainstem response results as predictors of behavioral auditory thresholds in severe and profound hearing impairment. Laryngoscope 1990;100:803–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Kileny, PR, Magathan, MG. Predictive value of ABR in infants and children with moderate to profound hearing impairment. Ear Hear 1987;8:217–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Stapells, DR, Picton, DW, Durieux-Smith, A, Edwards, CG, Moran, LM. Thresholds for short latency auditory evoked potentials to tones in notched noise in normal hearing and hearing impaired subjects. Audiology 1990;29:262–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Kuwada, S, Batra, R, Maher, VL. Scalp potentials of normal and hearing-impaired subjects in response to sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tones. Hearing Research 1986;21:179–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13 Lins, OG, Picton, PE, Picton, TW. Auditory steady-state responses to tones amplitude-modulated at 80–110 Hz. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97:3051–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Wu, HP, Hsu, WC, Chu, SS. Estimation of behavioral hearing thresholds through auditory steady-state evoked potentials. Formosan J Med 2001;5:269–76Google Scholar
15 Rance, G, Rickards, FW, Cohen, LT, De Vidi, S, Clark, GM. The automated prediction of hearing thresholds in sleeping subjects using auditory steady-state evoked potentials. Ear Hear 1995;16:499–507Google Scholar
16 Rance, G, Dowell, RC, Rickards, FW, Beer, DE, Clark, GM. Steady-state evoked potential and behavioral hearing thresholds in a group of children with absent click-evoked auditory brain stem response. Ear Hear 1998;19:48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Lins, OG, Picton, TW, Boucher, BL, Durieux-Smith, A, Champagne, SC, Moran, LM et al. Frequency-specific audiometry using steady-state responses. Ear Hear 1996;17:81–96Google Scholar
18 Perez-Abalo, MC, Savio, G, Torres, A. Steady state responses to multiple amplitude-modulated tones: an optimized method to test frequency-specific thresholds in hearing-impaired children and normal-hearing subjects. Ear Hear 2001;22:200–11Google Scholar
19 Lins, OG, Picton, TW. Auditory steady-state responses to multiple simultaneous stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995;96:420–32Google Scholar
20 John, MS, Purcell, DW, Dimitrijevic, A, Picton, TW. Advantages and caveats when recording steady-state responses to multiple simultaneous stimuli. J Am Acad Audiol 2002;13:246–59Google Scholar
21 Luts, H, Wouters, J. Hearing assessment by recording multiple auditory steady state responses: the influence of test duration. Int J Audiol 2004;43:471–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22 John, MS, Brown, DK, Muir, PJ, Picton, TW. Recording auditory steady-state responses in young infants. Ear Hear 2004;25:539–53Google Scholar
23 Linden, RD, Campbell, KB, Hamel, G, Picton, YW. Human auditory steady state evoked potentials during sleep. Ear Hear 1985;6:167–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24 Cohen, LT, Rickards, FW, Clark, GM. A comparison of steady-state evoked potentials to modulated tones in awake and sleeping humans. J Acous Soc Am 1991;90:2467–79CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed