Longitudinal study of brainstem auditory evoked responses in 87 normal human subjects

Abstract

We evaluated the reproducibility of brainstem auditory evoked responses (BAERs) in 87 normal individuals in a longitudinal study by estimating the correlation coefficients and variability of the interpeak intervals and the V/I amplitude ratio between trials on the same day and between sessions spaced 2 years apart. The highest correlation coefficients occur for the I-V interpeak interval between trials on the same day. The coefficients for the I-III and III-V intervals are lower, due to the variability of wave III. The correlations between ears done on the same day are lower still and are similar to measures obtained from the same ear at a 2-year interval. BAERs are more variable than previously believed between ears and over time, but not in a manner that is clinically significant and can be used longitudinally as a measure of neurologic disease. Finally, we provide the sample size required to detect a significant change in interpeak intervals.

Test-retest consistency of speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses in typically-developing children

“…Additionally, the test-retest period is one full year in the present study which is substantially longer than test-retest periods of months or days in previous studies showing speech-evoked response reliability (Russo et al, 2004; Song et al, 2011; Song et al, in press), click-evoked response reliability (Edwards et al, 1982; Lauter et al, 1992), and test-retest reliability for well-utilized behavioral assessments of learning and achievement (McGrew et al, 2001; Torgesen et al, 1999; Wagner et al, 1999). Click-evoked response reliability is weaker for responses collected two years apart than responses collected on the same day (Tusa et al, 1994) and it is very likely that the reliability estimates in the present study would be higher if the test-retest interval were shorter.…”

“…The clinically-viable reliability of the click-evoked ABR is well established (Edwards et al, 1982; Hood, 1998; Lauter et al, 1992; Musiek et al, 2007; Sininger, 2007; Tusa et al, 1994). The highly replicable, consistent response pattern evoked by click stimuli and characteristic response changes with alterations of intensity or presentation rate underlies the use of the click-evoked brainstem response in infant hearing screening and assessments of central auditory function (Hall, 2006; Hood, 1998; Musiek et al, 2007; Sininger, 2007).…”

“…For many reasons, including the high replicability of the response, the click-evoked ABR has been widely used as a clinical measure of auditory thresholds and neural integrity (Hall, 2006; Hood, 1998; Sininger, 2007). Within an individual, the variability in response timing (peak latencies) from one test to another is small, even when the tests are conducted months apart (Edwards et al, 1982; Lauter et al, 1992; Tusa et al, 1994). Response variability for both adults and children is higher across individuals than within individuals (Edwards et al, 1982; Lauter et al, 1992).…”

Reliability of the auditory brainstem responses to speech over one year in school-age children: A reply to Drs. McFarland and Cacace

“…Previous studies of speech-ABRs used test-retest intervals only a few months in length (Russo et al, 2004;Song et al, 2011). Moreover, ABRs of children are known to be more variable than adults both between and within subjects (Lauter and Oyler, 1992), and click-evoked reliability decreases with longer test-retest intervals (Tusa et al, 1994). Thus, a longer test-retest interval, a younger subject population, and a complex stimulation all contribute to test-retest variability.…”

Speech‐evoked auditory brainstem responses reflect familial and cognitive influences

“…While response-response correlations are often conducted within an individual to assess the impact of background noise on the response (Parbery-Clark et al, 2009;Russo et al, 2005), this type of intersubject correlation of responses has also been utilized to assess the genetic influence on evoked cortical responses by Young and colleagues (Young et al, 1972). As would be expected, variability is higher between individuals than within an individual; however, intersubject variability in auditory brainstem responses is often quite low (Edwards, Buchwald, Tanguay & Schwafel, 1982;Lauter & Oyler, 1992;Tusa, Stewart, Shechter, Simon & Liberman, 1994), sizably smaller than for cortical responses (Kileny & Kripal, 1987;Walhovd & Fjell, 2002). Our observed correlations between evoked brainstem responses were similar and in some cases larger than observed correlations among dizygotic twins for both resting EEG and cortical evoked responses (Katsanis et al, 1997;Young et al, 1972), suggesting that our methodology is valid.…”