2022•Annals of Otology and NeurotologyOpen access

Optimizing Auditory Brainstem Response Test with Narrow Band Level-Specific CE-Chirps

Nilüfer Bal, Özge Gedik Toker, Hilal Hüsam, Sümeyye Özdemir, Bartlomiej Dao Lien

Open full text 6 citations

Abstract

Abstract Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of narrow band level-specific Claus Elberling-Chirp (NB LS CE-Chirp) and LS CE-Chirp stimuli on the amplitudes, latencies, and interpeak latencies in comparison with tone burst (TB) and click. Methods A total of 40 ears (10 males, 10 females; age range: 20–26) individuals who had no complaints related to hearing participated in the study. Differences between click and LS CE-Chirp, frequency-specific (500—1,000—2,000—4,000) TB, and NB LS CE-Chirp were investigated at stimuli intensity of 70 decibel normal hearing loss (dBnHL). Results Absolute latencies were obtained longer in LS CE-Chirp than click stimulus, except wave V. At all frequencies, absolute latencies of I-III-V waves obtained with TB were significantly longer than those obtained with NB LS CE-Chirp. Amplitudes were higher in NB LS CE-Chirp compared to click and TB at all frequencies except 500 Hz. Conclusion The use of NB LS CE-Chirp is advantageous in patient assessment, but the benefit decreases at low frequencies. The differences in latency values of the stimuli should be taken into account in order to make a reliable interpretation of the results.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of narrow band level-specific Claus Elberling-Chirp (NB LS CE-Chirp) and LS CE-Chirp stimuli on the amplitudes, latencies, and interpeak latencies in comparison with tone burst (TB) and click. Methods A total of 40 ears (10 males, 10 females; age range: 20–26) individuals who had no complaints related to hearing participated in the study. Differences between click and LS CE-Chirp, frequency-specific (500—1,000—2,000—4,000) TB, and NB LS CE-Chirp were investigated at stimuli intensity of 70 decibel normal hearing loss (dBnHL). Results Absolute latencies were obtained longer in LS CE-Chirp than click stimulus, except wave V. At all frequencies, absolute latencies of I-III-V waves obtained with TB were significantly longer than those obtained with NB LS CE-Chirp. Amplitudes were higher in NB LS CE-Chirp compared to click and TB at all frequencies except 500 Hz. Conclusion The use of NB LS CE-Chirp is advantageous in patient assessment, but the benefit decreases at low frequencies. The differences in latency values of the stimuli should be taken into account in order to make a reliable interpretation of the results.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

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 aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of narrow band level-specific Claus Elberling-Chirp (NB LS CE-Chirp) and LS CE-Chirp stimuli on the amplitudes, latencies, and interpeak latencies in comparison with tone burst (TB) and click. Methods A total of 40 ears (10 males, 10 females; age range: 20–26) individuals who had no complaints related to hearing participated in the study. Differences between click and LS CE-Chirp, frequency-specific (500—1,000—2,000—4,000) TB, and NB LS CE-Chirp were investigated at stimuli intensity of 70 decibel normal hearing loss (dBnHL). Results Absolute latencies were obtained longer in LS CE-Chirp than click stimulus, except wave V. At all frequencies, absolute latencies of I-III-V waves obtained with TB were significantly longer than those obtained with NB LS CE-Chirp. Amplitudes were higher in NB LS CE-Chirp compared to click and TB at all frequencies except 500 Hz. Conclusion The use of NB LS CE-Chirp is advantageous in patient assessment, but the benefit decreases at low frequencies. The differences in latency values of the stimuli should be taken into account in order to make a reliable interpretation of the results.

Key concepts: Chirp, Audiology, Tone burst, Stimulus (psychology), Decibel, Amplitude, Auditory brainstem response, Acoustics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Optimizing Auditory Brainstem Response Test with Narrow Band Level-Specific CE-Chirps — Research Paper | ScholarLens