2020•PubMedRequires access

Frequency Characteristics of AEPs in Normal Young Adults and Comparison of Their Response Threshold and Pure Tone Audiometry Threshold.

Li Cheng, Fang-Liang Luo, Y H Xiong, F Q Jia, Pui-kwan Tang, W Liu, B Zhang, J H Liu, H X Wang

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objective The tests of three types of auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) were performed on normal young adults, to understand the frequency characteristics of different testing methods and the relationship between response threshold and pure tone audiometry threshold of different methods, and to discuss the forensic value of 3 types of AEPs to evaluate hearing function. Methods Twenty normal young adults were selected, their standard pure tone audiometry threshold, short-term pure tone audiometry threshold and the response threshold of 3 types of AEPs (tone burst-auditory brainstem response, 40 Hz auditory event-related potential and slow vertex response) at 0.5 kHz, 1.0 kHz, 2.0 kHz and 4.0 kHz were recorded. The relationship between the response threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold, short-term pure tone audiometry threshold of 3 types of AEPs at different frequencies as well as the differences between different types of AEPs were analyzed. Results The short-term pure tone audiometry threshold was higher than the standard pure tone audiometry threshold at each frequency. The response threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold of the 3 types of AEPs all had a certain correlation, and the response threshold of the 3 types of AEPs was higher than short-term pure tone audiometry threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold at each frequency. The differences in the differences between the response threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold of the 3 types of AEPs at different frequencies had statistical significance. Linear regression mathematical models were established to infer the standard pure tone audiometry threshold (hearing level) from response threshold (sound pressure level) of 3 types of AEPs of normal young adults. Conclusion When using response threshold of different types of AEPs to estimate pure tone audiometry threshold, conversion and correction are needed. Combined use of different types of AEPs could improve the accuracy of hearing function evaluation.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

ABSTRACT: Objective The tests of three types of auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) were performed on normal young adults, to understand the frequency characteristics of different testing methods and the relationship between response threshold and pure tone audiometry threshold of different methods, and to discuss the forensic value of 3 types of AEPs to evaluate hearing function. Methods Twenty normal young adults were selected, their standard pure tone audiometry threshold, short-term pure tone audiometry threshold and the response threshold of 3 types of AEPs (tone burst-auditory brainstem response, 40 Hz auditory event-related potential and slow vertex response) at 0.5 kHz, 1.0 kHz, 2.0 kHz and 4.0 kHz were recorded. The relationship between the response threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold, short-term pure tone audiometry threshold of 3 types of AEPs at different frequencies as well as the differences between different types of AEPs were analyzed. Results The short-term pure tone audiometry threshold was higher than the standard pure tone audiometry threshold at each frequency. The response threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold of the 3 types of AEPs all had a certain correlation, and the response threshold of the 3 types of AEPs was higher than short-term pure tone audiometry threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold at each frequency. The differences in the differences between the response threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold of the 3 types of AEPs at different frequencies had statistical significance. Linear regression mathematical models were established to infer the standard pure tone audiometry threshold (hearing level) from response threshold (sound pressure level) of 3 types of AEPs of normal young adults. Conclusion When using response threshold of different types of AEPs to estimate pure tone audiometry threshold, conversion and correction are needed. Combined use of different types of AEPs could improve the accuracy of hearing function evaluation.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

ABSTRACT: Objective The tests of three types of auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) were performed on normal young adults, to understand the frequency characteristics of different testing methods and the relationship between response threshold and pure tone audiometry threshold of different methods, and to discuss the forensic value of 3 types of AEPs to evaluate hearing function. Methods Twenty normal young adults were selected, their standard pure tone audiometry threshold, short-term pure tone audiometry threshold and the response threshold of 3 types of AEPs (tone burst-auditory brainstem response, 40 Hz auditory event-related potential and slow vertex response) at 0.5 kHz, 1.0 kHz, 2.0 kHz and 4.0 kHz were recorded. The relationship between the response threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold, short-term pure tone audiometry threshold of 3 types of AEPs at different frequencies as well as the differences between different types of AEPs were analyzed. Results The short-term pure tone audiometry threshold was higher than the standard pure tone audiometry threshold at each frequency. The response threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold of the 3 types of AEPs all had a certain correlation, and the response threshold of the 3 types of AEPs was higher than short-term pure tone audiometry threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold at each frequency. The differences in the differences between the response threshold and standard pure tone audiometry threshold of the 3 types of AEPs at different frequencies had statistical significance. Linear regression mathematical models were established to infer the standard pure tone audiometry threshold (hearing level) from response threshold (sound pressure level) of 3 types of AEPs of normal young adults. Conclusion When using response threshold of different types of AEPs to estimate pure tone audiometry threshold, conversion and correction are needed. Combined use of different types of AEPs could improve the accuracy of hearing function evaluation.

Key concepts: Audiology, Audiometry, Pure tone audiometry, Absolute threshold of hearing, Medicine, Tone (literature), Pure tone, Tone burst

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Frequency Characteristics of AEPs in Normal Young Adults and Comparison of Their Response Threshold and Pure Tone Audiometry Threshold. — Research Paper | ScholarLens