Download PDF
Semin Hear 2022; 43(03): 177-196
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756163
Review Article

A Home-Based Approach to Auditory Brainstem Response Measurement: Proof-of-Concept and Practical Guidelines

Ashley Parker   *
1   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
2   Connecticut Institute for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
5   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
,
Erika Skoe   *
1   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
2   Connecticut Institute for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
3   Cognitive Sciences Program, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
,
Lee Tecoulesco
3   Cognitive Sciences Program, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
4   Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
,
Letitia Naigles
2   Connecticut Institute for Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
3   Cognitive Sciences Program, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
4   Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Broad-scale neuroscientific investigations of diverse human populations are difficult to implement. This is because the primary neuroimaging methods (magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography [EEG]) historically have not been portable, and participants may be unable or unwilling to travel to test sites. Miniaturization of EEG technologies has now opened the door to neuroscientific fieldwork, allowing for easier access to under-represented populations. Recent efforts to conduct auditory neuroscience outside a laboratory setting are reviewed and then an in-home technique for recording auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) and frequency-following responses (FFRs) in a home setting is introduced. As a proof of concept, we have conducted two in-home electrophysiological studies: one in 27 children aged 6 to 16 years (13 with autism spectrum disorder) and another in 12 young adults aged 18 to 27 years, using portable electrophysiological equipment to record ABRs and FFRs to click and speech stimuli, spanning rural and urban and multiple homes and testers. We validate our fieldwork approach by presenting waveforms and data on latencies and signal-to-noise ratio. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility and utility of home-based ABR/FFR techniques, paving the course for larger fieldwork investigations of populations that are difficult to test or recruit. We conclude this tutorial with practical tips and guidelines for recording ABRs and FFRs in the field and discuss possible clinical and research applications of this approach.

Keywords

auditory brainstem response - frequency-following response - fieldwork - autism spectrum disorder

* Co—first authors.




Publication History

Article published online:
26 October 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 İnce R, Adanır SS, Sevmez F. The inventor of electroencephalography (EEG): Hans Berger (1873-1941). Childs Nerv Syst 2021; 37 (09) 2723-2724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hughes JR. EEG in Clinical Practice. Boston, MA:: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Skeide MA, Friederici AD. The ontogeny of the cortical language network. Nat Rev Neurosci 2016; 17 (05) 323-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Skeide MA, Brauer J, Friederici AD. Brain functional and structural predictors of language performance. Cereb Cortex 2016; 26 (05) 2127-2139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Centanni TM, Pantazis D, Truong DT, Gruen JR, Gabrieli JDE, Hogan TP. Increased variability of stimulus-driven cortical responses is associated with genetic variability in children with and without dyslexia. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2018; 34: 7-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Picton TW, Hillyard SA. Human auditory evoked potentials. II. Effects of attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1974; 36 (02) 191-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rozengurt R, Shtoots L, Sheriff A, Sadka O, Levy DA. Enhancing early consolidation of human episodic memory by theta EEG neurofeedback. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2017; 145: 165-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Skoe E, Krizman J, Anderson S, Kraus N. Stability and plasticity of auditory brainstem function across the lifespan. Cereb Cortex 2015; 25 (06) 1415-1426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Luck S. An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. MIT Press; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Picton T. Human Auditory Evoked Potentials 1st Edition. Plural Publishing; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Kuziek JWP, Shienh A, Mathewson KE. Transitioning EEG experiments away from the laboratory using a Raspberry Pi 2. J Neurosci Methods 2017; 277: 75-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kuziek J, Redman EX, Splinter GD, Mathewson KE. Increasing the mobility of EEG data collection using a latte panda computer. bioRxiv 2018; 263376
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kornilov SA, Magnuson JS, Rakhlin N, Landi N, Grigorenko EL. Lexical processing deficits in children with developmental language disorder: an event-related potentials study. Dev Psychopathol 2015; 27 (02) 459-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Scanlon JEM, Townsend KA, Cormier DL, Kuziek JWP, Mathewson KE. Taking off the training wheels: measuring auditory P3 during outdoor cycling using an active wet EEG system. Brain Res 2019; 1716: 50-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Protzak J, Gramann K. Investigating established EEG parameter during real-world driving. Front Psychol 2018; 9: 2289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wang D, Mo F, Zhang Y. et al. Auditory evoked potentials in patients with major depressive disorder measured by Emotiv system. Biomed Mater Eng 2015; 26 (Suppl. 01) S917-S923
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Binias B, Myszor D, Cyran KA. A machine learning approach to the detection of pilot's reaction to unexpected events based on EEG signals. Comput Intell Neurosci 2018; 2018: 2703513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kraus N, Slater J, Thompson EC. et al. Auditory learning through active engagement with sound: biological impact of community music lessons in at-risk children. Front Neurosci 2014; 8: 351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kraus N, Hornickel J, Strait DL, Slater J, Thompson E. Engagement in community music classes sparks neuroplasticity and language development in children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Front Psychol 2014; 5: 1403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kraus N, Slater J, Thompson EC. et al. Music enrichment programs improve the neural encoding of speech in at-risk children. J Neurosci 2014; 34 (36) 11913-11918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jewett DL, Williston JS. Auditory-evoked far fields averaged from the scalp of humans. Brain 1971; 94 (04) 681-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jewett DL, Romano MN, Williston JS. Human auditory evoked potentials: possible brain stem components detected on the scalp. Science 1970; 167 (3924): 1517-1518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hall JW. New Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses. Allyn and Bacon; 2007. :xi, 871
    Google Scholar
  • 24 White KR, Forsman I, Eichwald J, Munoz K. The evolution of early hearing detection and intervention programs in the United States. Semin Perinatol 2010; 34 (02) 170-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Johnson JL, White KR, Widen JE. et al. A multicenter evaluation of how many infants with permanent hearing loss pass a two-stage otoacoustic emissions/automated auditory brainstem response newborn hearing screening protocol. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (03) 663-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Jacobson JT, Murray TJ, Deppe U. The effects of ABR stimulus repetition rate in multiple sclerosis. Ear Hear 1987; 8 (02) 115-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wynne DP, Zeng FG, Bhatt S, Michalewski HJ, Dimitrijevic A, Starr A. Loudness adaptation accompanying ribbon synapse and auditory nerve disorders. Brain 2013; 136 (Pt 5): 1626-1638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gopal KV, Chesky K, Beschoner EA, Nelson PD, Stewart BJ. Auditory risk assessment of college music students in jazz band-based instructional activity. Noise Health 2013; 15 (65) 246-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Skoe E, Tufts J. Evidence of noise-induced subclinical hearing loss using auditory brainstem responses and objective measures of noise exposure in humans. Hear Res 2018; 361: 80-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Bramhall NF, Konrad-Martin D, McMillan GP, Griest SE. Auditory brainstem response altered in humans with noise exposure despite normal outer hair cell function. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (01) e1-e12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mehraei G, Gallardo AP, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Dau T. Auditory brainstem response latency in forward masking, a marker of sensory deficits in listeners with normal hearing thresholds. Hear Res 2017; 346: 34-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kraus N, Anderson S, White-Schwoch T. The Frequency-following response: a window into human communication. In: The Frequency-Following Response. Springer; 2017: 1-15
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ribas-Prats T, Almeida L, Costa-Faidella J. et al. The frequency-following response (FFR) to speech stimuli: a normative dataset in healthy newborns. Hear Res 2019; 371: 28-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bidelman GM. Subcortical sources dominate the neuroelectric auditory frequency-following response to speech. Neuroimage 2018; 175: 56-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Carcagno S, Plack CJ. Subcortical plasticity following perceptual learning in a pitch discrimination task. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2011; 12 (01) 89-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bidelman GM, Weiss MW, Moreno S, Alain C. Coordinated plasticity in brainstem and auditory cortex contributes to enhanced categorical speech perception in musicians. Eur J Neurosci 2014; 40 (04) 2662-2673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kraus N, Thompson EC, Krizman J, Cook K, White-Schwoch T, LaBella CR. Auditory biological marker of concussion in children. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 39009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kraus N, Lindley T, Colegrove D. et al. The neural legacy of a single concussion. Neurosci Lett 2017; 646: 21-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Rauterkus G, Moncrieff D, Stewart G, Skoe E. Baseline, retest, and post-injury profiles of auditory neural function in collegiate football players. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (09) 650-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Song JH, Skoe E, Wong PC, Kraus N. Plasticity in the adult human auditory brainstem following short-term linguistic training. J Cogn Neurosci 2008; 20 (10) 1892-1902
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Skoe E, Kraus N. A little goes a long way: how the adult brain is shaped by musical training in childhood. J Neurosci 2012; 32 (34) 11507-11510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Jovicich J, Czanner S, Greve D. et al. Reliability in multi-site structural MRI studies: effects of gradient non-linearity correction on phantom and human data. Neuroimage 2006; 30 (02) 436-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Banai K, Hornickel J, Skoe E, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Reading and subcortical auditory function. Cereb Cortex 2009; 19 (11) 2699-2707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Hornickel J, Kraus N. Unstable representation of sound: a biological marker of dyslexia. J Neurosci 2013; 33 (08) 3500-3504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Chonchaiya W, Tardif T, Mai X. et al. Developmental trends in auditory processing can provide early predictions of language acquisition in young infants. Dev Sci 2013; 16 (02) 159-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lü J, Huang Z, Yang T. et al. Screening for delayed-onset hearing loss in preschool children who previously passed the newborn hearing screening. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 75 (08) 1045-1049
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Jeng FC, Hu J, Dickman B. et al. Evaluation of two algorithms for detecting human frequency-following responses to voice pitch. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (01) 14-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Jeng FC, Hu J, Dickman B. et al. Cross-linguistic comparison of frequency-following responses to voice pitch in American and Chinese neonates and adults. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (06) 699-707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Jeng FC, Schnabel EA, Dickman BM. et al. Early maturation of frequency-following responses to voice pitch in infants with normal hearing. Percept Mot Skills 2010; 111 (03) 765-784
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Geller SE, Koch AR, Roesch P, Filut A, Hallgren E, Carnes M. The more things change, the more they stay the same: a study to evaluate compliance with inclusion and assessment of women and minorities in randomized controlled trials. Acad Med 2018; 93 (04) 630-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Erves JC, Mayo-Gamble TL, Malin-Fair A. et al. Needs, priorities, and recommendations for engaging underrepresented populations in clinical research: a community perspective. J Community Health 2017; 42 (03) 472-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Slater J, Skoe E, Strait DL, O'Connell S, Thompson E, Kraus N. Music training improves speech-in-noise perception: longitudinal evidence from a community-based music program. Behav Brain Res 2015; 291: 244-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Slater J, Strait DL, Skoe E, O'Connell S, Thompson E, Kraus N. Longitudinal effects of group music instruction on literacy skills in low-income children. PLoS One 2014; 9 (11) e113383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Kraus N, White-Schwoch T. Neurobiology of everyday communication: What have we learned from music?. The Neuroscientist 2017; 23 (03) 287-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Strait DL, Parbery-Clark A, Hittner E, Kraus N. Musical training during early childhood enhances the neural encoding of speech in noise. Brain Lang 2012; 123 (03) 191-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Strait DL, Parbery-Clark A, O'Connell S, Kraus N. Biological impact of preschool music classes on processing speech in noise. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2013; 6: 51-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Jackson WT, Starling AJ. Concussion evaluation and management. Med Clin North Am 2019; 103 (02) 251-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Bergemalm PO, Lyxell B. Appearances are deceptive? Long-term cognitive and central auditory sequelae from closed head injury. Int J Audiol 2005; 44 (01) 39-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Osetinsky LM, Hamilton III GS, Carlson ML. Sport injuries of the ear and temporal bone. Clin Sports Med 2017; 36 (02) 315-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Fitzgerald DC. Head trauma: hearing loss and dizziness. J Trauma 1996; 40 (03) 488-496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Gessel LM, Fields SK, Collins CL, Dick RW, Comstock RD. Concussions among United States high school and collegiate athletes. J Athl Train 2007; 42 (04) 495-503
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Vander Werff KR, Rieger B. Brainstem evoked potential indices of subcortical auditory processing after mild traumatic brain injury. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (04) e200-e214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Bidelman GM, Pousson M, Dugas C, Fehrenbach A. Test-retest reliability of dual-recorded brainstem versus cortical auditory-evoked potentials to speech. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (02) 164-174
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Song JH, Nicol T, Kraus N. Test-retest reliability of the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response. Clin Neurophysiol 2011; 122 (02) 346-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Naigles LR, Fein D. Looking Through Their Eyes: Tracking Early Language Comprehension in ASD. 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Naigles LR, Tovar AT. Portable intermodal preferential looking (IPL): investigating language comprehension in typically developing toddlers and young children with autism. J Vis Exp 2012; (70) e4331
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Tecoulesco L, Skoe E, Naigles LR. Phonetic discrimination mediates the relationship between auditory brainstem response stability and syntactic performance. Brain Lang 2020; 208: 104810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Parker A, Slack C, Skoe E. Comparisons of auditory brainstem responses between a laboratory and simulated home environment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2020; 63 (11) 3877-3892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Accessed August 8, 2022 at: http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/book.aspx?bookid=556
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (03) 302-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Krizman J, Kraus N. Analyzing the FFR: A tutorial for decoding the richness of auditory function. Hearing research 2019; 382: 107779
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Chimento TC, Schreiner CE. Selectively eliminating cochlear microphonic contamination from the frequency-following response. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1990; 75 (02) 88-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Edwards RM, Buchwald JS, Tanguay PE, Schwafel JA. Sources of variability in auditory brain stem evoked potential measures over time. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1982; 53 (02) 125-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Oyler RF, Lauter JL, Matkin ND. Intrasubject variability in the absolute latency of the auditory brainstem response. J Am Acad Audiol 1991; 2 (04) 206-213
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Tusa RJ, Stewart WF, Shechter AL, Simon D, Liberman JN. Longitudinal study of brainstem auditory evoked responses in 87 normal human subjects. Neurology 1994; 44 (3 Pt 1): 528-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Hornickel J, Knowles E, Kraus N. Test-retest consistency of speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses in typically-developing children. Hear Res 2012; 284 (1-2): 52-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Hood LJ. Clinical Applications of the Auditory Brainstem Response. Singular Publishing; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 78 Dhar S, Abel R, Hornickel J. et al. Exploring the relationship between physiological measures of cochlear and brainstem function. Clin Neurophysiol 2009; 120 (05) 959-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Johnson KL, Nicol T, Zecker SG, Bradlow AR, Skoe E, Kraus N. Brainstem encoding of voiced consonant–vowel stop syllables. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119 (11) 2623-2635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Talge NM, Tudor BM, Kileny PR. Click-evoked auditory brainstem responses and autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analytic review. Autism Res 2018; 11 (06) 916-927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Kulesza RJ, Mangunay K. Morphological features of the medial superior olive in autism. Brain Res 2008; 1200: 132-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Kulesza Jr RJ, Lukose R, Stevens LV. Malformation of the human superior olive in autistic spectrum disorders. Brain Res 2011; 1367: 360-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Courchesne E. Brainstem, cerebellar and limbic neuroanatomical abnormalities in autism. Curr Opin Neurobiol 1997; 7 (02) 269-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Lukose R, Beebe K, Kulesza Jr RJ. Organization of the human superior olivary complex in 15q duplication syndromes and autism spectrum disorders. Neuroscience 2015; 286: 216-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Rosenhall U, Nordin V, Brantberg K, Gillberg C. Autism and auditory brain stem responses. Ear and Hearing 2003; 24 (03) 206-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Maziade M, Mérette C, Cayer M. et al. Prolongation of brainstem auditory-evoked responses in autistic probands and their unaffected relatives. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000; 57 (11) 1077-1083
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Azouz HG, Kozou H, Khalil M, Abdou RM, Sakr M. The correlation between central auditory processing in autistic children and their language processing abilities. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2014; 78 (12) 2297-2300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Kwon S, Kim J, Choe BH, Ko C, Park S. Electrophysiologic assessment of central auditory processing by auditory brainstem responses in children with autism spectrum disorders. J Korean Med Sci 2007; 22 (04) 656-659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Hitoglou M, Ververi A, Antoniadis A, Zafeiriou DI. Childhood autism and auditory system abnormalities. Pediatr Neurol 2010; 42 (05) 309-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Fein D, Skoff B, Mirsky AF. Clinical correlates of brainstem dysfunction in autistic children. J Autism Dev Disord 1981; 11 (03) 303-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Miron O, Ari-Even Roth D, Gabis LV. et al. Prolonged auditory brainstem responses in infants with autism. Autism Res 2016; 9 (06) 689-695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Wiegers JS, Bielefeld EC, Whitelaw GM. Utility of the Vivosonic Integrity™ auditory brainstem response system as a hearing screening device for difficult-to-test children. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (04) 282-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Kardous CA, Shaw PB. Evaluation of smartphone sound measurement applications. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 135 (04) EL186-EL192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Burkard RF, Sims D. A comparison of the effects of broadband masking noise on the auditory brainstem response in young and older adults. Am J Audiol 2002; 11 (01) 13-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Rowe ML. Recording, Transcribing, and Coding Interaction. Research Methods in Child Language: A Practical Guide. Wiley; 2011: 191-207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Osterhammel PA, Shallop JK, Terkildsen K. The effect of sleep on the auditory brainstem response (ABR) and the middle latency response (MLR). Scand Audiol 1985; 14 (01) 47-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Krishnan A, Gandour JT. The role of the auditory brainstem in processing linguistically-relevant pitch patterns. Brain Lang 2009; 110 (03) 135-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Park J-S, Cederroth CR, Basinou V, Meltser I, Lundkvist G, Canlon B. Identification of a circadian clock in the inferior colliculus and its dysregulation by noise exposure. J Neurosci 2016; 36 (20) 5509-5519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Marshall NK, Donchin E. Circadian variation in the latency of brainstem responses and its relation to body temperature. Science 1981; 212 (4492): 356-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Fusaroli R, Weed E, Fein D, Naigles L. Hearing me hearing you: reciprocal effects between child and parent language in autism and typical development. Cognition 2019; 183: 1-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Skoe E, Krizman J, Kraus N. The impoverished brain: disparities in maternal education affect the neural response to sound. J Neurosci 2013; 33 (44) 17221-17231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Johnson LJ. Meeting Early Intervention Challenges: Issues from Birth to Three. ERIC; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 103 Reich DS, Wiatrak BJ. Methods of sedation for auditory brainstem response testing. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1996; 38 (02) 131-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Spitzer E, White-Schwoch T, Carr KW, Skoe E, Kraus N. Continued maturation of the click-evoked auditory brainstem response in preschoolers. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (01) 30-35
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 White-Schwoch T, Woodruff Carr K, Thompson EC. et al. Auditory processing in noise: a preschool biomarker for literacy. PLoS Biol 2015; 13 (07) e1002196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Pynnonen MA, Handelsman JA, King EF, Singer DC, Davis MM, Lesperance MM. Parent perception of newborn hearing screening: results of a US national survey. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016; 142 (06) 538-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Bitterman N. Design of medical devices–a home perspective. Eur J Intern Med 2011; 22 (01) 39-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar