Objective assessment of frequency-specific hearing thresholds in babies

Luts, Heleen; Desloovere, Christian; Kumar, Ariane; Vandermeersch, Eugéne; Wouters, Jan

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.02.007

Cited by 100 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An additional issue is that most studies of these tests in children have been done with all subjects (or part of them) under sedation 3,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] . A few studies of infants in natural sleep and adults have chosen one of the ears randomly 6,16,[18][19][20][21] or by recording the responses in two channels 22 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory evoked potentials in premature and full-term infants

Porto¹,

Azevedo²,

Gil³

2011

Braz. j. otorhinolaryngol. (Impr.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurat e information about type, degree, and configuration of hearing loss are necessary for successful audiological early interventions. Auditory brainstem response with tone burst stimuli (TB ABR) and auditory steady-state response (ASSR) exams provide this information. Aim:To analyze the clinical applicability of TB ABR and ASSR at 2 kHz in infants, comparing responses in full-term and premature neonates. Material and Method:The study was cross-sectional, clinical and experimental. Subjects consisted of 17 premature infants and 19 full-term infants. TB ABR and ASSR exams at 2000 Hz were done during natural sleep. Results:The electrophysiological minimum response obtained with TB ABR was 32.4 dBnHL (52.4 dBSPL); the ASSR minimum was 13.8 dBHL (26.4 dBSPL). The exams required 21.1 min and 22 min, respectively. Premature and full-term infant responses showed no statistically significant differences, except for auditory steady-state response duration. Conclusions:Both exams have clinical applicability at 2 kHz in infants, with 20 min of duration, on average. In general, there are no differences between premature and full-term individuals. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;77(5):622-7. BJORL ORIGINAL ARTICLE

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auditory evoked potentials in premature and full-term infants

Porto¹,

Azevedo²,

Gil³

2011

Braz. j. otorhinolaryngol. (Impr.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ASSR Sensitivity of this test was 100 % with specificity of 96.77 %, and positive predictive value: 98.57 % and negative predictive value: 100 %. Luts et al [6] made a comparative study between ABR threshold and ASSR thresholds at 2 kHz, since the spectrum of the click stimulus contains most energy at frequencies around 2 kHz and found that the correlation of ABR thresholds and ASSR thresholds at 2 kHz to be 0.77. Only 58 % of the variance of the ABR threshold was explained by its linear relationship with the ASSR threshold.…”

Section: Aabrmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Current Audiological Tests in the Early Diagnosis of Hearing Impairment in Infant

Kuki

Chadha

Dhingra

et al. 2012

Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to compare the various audiological tests that are currently available as screening tools for infant hearing assessment. In developing countries, which have limited resources, it is imperative to design a screening programme that is easy to perform, gives accurate results, has good patient acceptability and is cost effective. Fifty infants, 3-12 months of age, were subjected to BOT for hearing, transient-evoked oto-acoustic emissions (TEOAEs), automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) test, auditory brainstem evoked response (ABR) testing and auditory steady state response (ASSR). The sensitivity and specificity of the various tests was calculated, with ABR test as the gold standard. We also compared them for average time taken, cost factors, ease of performance, number of repeat tests required and patient acceptability. All the screening tests, TEOAE, AABR and behavioral observation test had reasonably high sensitivity. Specificity was highest for behavioral observation testing (67.7 %) and AABR (64.5 %), but low for OAE test (48.3 %). The cost and time taken for each test was least for the behavioral observation test, which also did not require any repeat testing. TEOAE and AABR incur a recurring cost of approximately one dollar per test. However, in 12 and 28 % of the babies had to be called back for repeat testing, respectively. ASSR, as a diagnostic test, has a 100 % sensitivity and high specificity but scores down on the cost involved, time taken and the number of repeat tests required. Overall parent acceptability was the highest for behavioral observation test, as it was non-invasive and easy to perform. Behavioral observation combined with TEO-AE/AABR, can be fairly accurate as screening tests for hearing loss in infants. Considering its ease of performance and low cost, behavioral observation could be used as a screening test for detection of hearing loss in infants, in those countries/places where universal neonatal hearing screening is not yet available.

show abstract

“…There is therefore great interest in the clinical audiology community in the development of objective techniques to measure various hearing abilities that do not require behavioural responses from the patient and are able to determine fitting parameters for hearing aids and cochlear implants. While the use of cortical responses is in development (Billings et al 2007(Billings et al , 2011Carter et al 2010;Billings et al 2012;Chang et al 2012), transient brainstem responses and steady state responses (Luts et al 2004(Luts et al , 2006Alaerts et al 2010) are already used in clinical practice to objectively assess hearing thresholds in young children. However, while these measures provide an estimate of audibility with the prescribed hearing aid gain, they do not provide any indication of the expected hearing ability of the patient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%