Reported are the results of meta-analyses of data derived collectively from a sample of 56 published research studies on electric response audiometry (ERA) using auditory steady-state responses (ASSRs). Several specific methodological issues were examined and hypotheses were posited to rigorously test common conclusions drawn from the ASSR literature on the accuracy of ASSR-ERA. Explanatory variables for analyses were type of population (normally hearing and hearing-impaired), type of modulation, number of sweeps acquired during response analysis, electrode montage, and modulation rate (80 vs. 40 Hz). No explanatory variables were found to be significantly related to the degree of disparity between thresholds obtained by ASSR-ERA versus behavioral audiometry in the normally hearing population. Conversely, all but one explanatory variable (i.e. electrode montage) was found to be significantly related to mean threshold differences in the hearing-impaired and combined populations. Results both substantiate some of common conclusions drawn from the literature but call others into question, helping to identify those methodological issues which appear to, or not to, significantly affect the accuracy of estimating threshold using ASSR measurement. In addition to these findings, another practical outcome of this study was the development of various summary tables of the data analysed from the literature sampled.

The analysis methods used in this paper may give information that will have application for clinical testing. Of pragmatic importance is that the rate profile could be determined without subjective wave identification and/or interpretation, and thus by a method that is inherently more objective than conventional AEP tests.

Advancing age has no effect on the long-latency equivalent ASSRs; however, aging does affect the middle-latency equivalent ASSRs when the mean age difference is ≥ 40 years.

The analysis methods used in this paper may give information that will have applications for clinical testing. Of pragmatic importance is that the stimulus rate profile could be determined without subjective wave identification and/or interpretation, and thus by a method that is inherently more objective than conventional AEP analysis.