The purpose of this study was to present a simple and powerful fitting model that describes age-dependent changes of auditory brainstem responses (ABR) in a clinical population of normal hearing children. A total of 175 children (younger than 200 weeks postconceptional age) were referred for audiologic assessment with normal ABR results. ABR parameters of normal hearing children between 2003 and 2008 were included. The results of the right ears recorded at 90 dB nHL were analyzed. A simple and accurate fitting model was formulated based on these data. A very similar age-dependent effect was found for peaks III and V, and I–III and I–V intervals; latencies decrease as postconceptional age increases. It shows that the total age-dependent effect will be completed after 1.5–2 years. The age-dependent effect can be modeled by a relatively simple and accurate exponential function. This fitting model can be easily implemented to analyze ABR results of infants in daily clinical practice. We speculate about the underlying physiological processes.

Although the benefit of bimodal listening in cochlear implant users has been agreed on, speech comprehension remains a challenge in acoustically complex real-life environments due to reverberation and disturbing background noises. One way to additionally improve bimodal auditory performance is the use of directional microphones. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a binaural beamformer for bimodal cochlear implant (CI) users. This prospective study measured speech reception thresholds (SRT) in noise in a repeated-measures design that varied in listening modality for static and dynamic listening conditions. A significant improvement in SRT of 4.7 dB was found with the binaural beamformer switched on in the bimodal static listening condition. No significant improvement was found in the dynamic listening condition. We conclude that there is a clear additional advantage of the binaural beamformer in bimodal CI users for predictable/static listening conditions with frontal target speech and spatially separated noise sources.

The best criterion to decide which patient with asymmetric hearing loss should be referred to MRI is based on the average bone conduction threshold difference at multiple (two or three) higher frequencies. The extent of the average threshold difference between ears that is used as a cutoff will mainly depend on treatment modality and (eventually) on resource costs and on the burden of Gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Results of ABR can have little added value when only patients with a unilateral abnormal ABR at the worse hearing ear are referred to MRI. However, a lower sensitivity must then be accepted.