Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Annals of Otology and Neurotology 2022; 05(02): 050-054
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764180
Original Article

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

Nilüfer Bal 
1   Department of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Özge Gedik Toker 
1   Department of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Hilal Hüsam 
1   Department of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Sümeyye Özdemir 
1   Department of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Bartlomiej Dao Lien 
2   Audiology Amplifon, Warsaw, Poland
3   Instytut Pomnik - Centrum Zdrowia Dziecka, Warsaw, Poland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

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.

Keywords

tone burst - chirp - auditory evoked potential - click


Publication History

Article published online:
30 May 2023

© 2023. Indian Society of Otology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hecox K, Galambos R. Brain stem auditory evoked responses in human infants and adults. Arch Otolaryngol 1974; 99 (01) 30-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Picton TW. Human Auditory Evoked Potentials. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2019: 213-247
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Hall JW. New Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2007: 11-17
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Hall JW. eHandbook of Auditory Evoked Responses. Seattle, WA: Kindle Direct Publishing; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Cebulla M, Stürzebecher E, Elberling C, Müller J. New clicklike stimuli for hearing testing. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (09) 725-738
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Elberling C, Don M. Auditory brainstem responses to a chirp stimulus designed from derived-band latencies in normal-hearing subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 124 (05) 3022-3037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Elberling C, Don M. A direct approach for the design of chirp stimuli used for the recording of auditory brainstem responses. J Acoust Soc Am 2010; 128 (05) 2955-2964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cargnelutti M, Cóser PL, Biaggio EPV. LS CE-Chirp® vs. Click in the neuroaudiological diagnosis by ABR. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2017; 83 (03) 313-317
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Kristensen SG, Elberling C. Auditory brainstem responses to level-specific chirps in normal-hearing adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (09) 712-721
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dzulkarnain AAA, Abdullah SA, Ruzai MAM, Ibrahim SHMN, Anuar NFA, Rahim EA. Effects of different electrode configurations on the narrow band level-specific CE-Chirp and tone-burst auditory brainstem response at multiple intensity levels and frequencies in subjects with normal hearing. Am J Audiol 2018; 27 (03) 294-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cobb KM, Stuart A. Neonate auditory brainstem responses to CE-Chirp and CE-Chirp octave band stimuli I: versus click and tone burst stimuli. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (06) 710-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ferm I, Lightfoot G. Further comparisons of ABR response amplitudes, test time, and estimation of hearing threshold using frequency-specific chirp and tone pip stimuli in newborns: findings at 0.5 and 2 kHz. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (010) 745-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rodrigues GRI, Ramos N, Lewis DR. Comparing auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) to toneburst and narrow band CE-chirp in young infants. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 77 (09) 1555-1560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ferm I, Lightfoot G, Stevens J. Comparison of ABR response amplitude, test time, and estimation of hearing threshold using frequency specific chirp and tone pip stimuli in newborns. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (06) 419-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Megha KN, Divyashree KN, Lakshmi A. et al. Narrow-band chirp and tone burst auditory brainstem response as an early indicator of synaptopathy in industrial workers exposed to occupational noise. Intractable Rare Dis Res 2019; 8 (03) 179-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar