The effect of click rate on latency and interpeak interval of the brain-stem auditory evoked potentials in children from birth to 6 years

Jiang, Ze D.; Wu, Yun Ya; Zheng, Wanting; Sun, Do; Feng, Lei; Liu, X.Y.

doi:10.1016/0168-5597(91)90044-x

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found rate dependences for EABR latency t3 and t5 in the order of 0.19 ms and 0.37 ms, respectively, while ECAPs were not affected by rate. Correspondingly, the interpeak intervals' rate dependences for t5 − t1, t5 − t3 and t3 − t1 were found to be in the order of 0.37 ms, 0.18 ms and 0.19 ms. Jiang et al [18] described the change in rate dependence in acoustic ABR as an effect of the maturing auditory pathway in children of various ages. In adults, the latency changes with rate are probably related to synaptic adaptation [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some characteristics of CI recipients, such as rate dependence of electrophysiological measurements, indicate a potential for improvement in differential diagnostics. In the acoustic modality, rate effects in auditory brainstem responses (ABR) are already well described [17,18]. Jiang et al [18] reported age-dependent latencies and interpeak intervals in children as consequences of developmental effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the acoustic modality, rate effects in auditory brainstem responses (ABR) are already well described [17,18]. Jiang et al [18] reported age-dependent latencies and interpeak intervals in children as consequences of developmental effects. In our opinion, this measure of auditory synaptic efficacy [18] can be transferred to differential diagnostics in CI recipients to provide further explanation of unexpectedly poor WRS 65 (CI) values.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jiang et al [18] reported age-dependent latencies and interpeak intervals in children as consequences of developmental effects. In our opinion, this measure of auditory synaptic efficacy [18] can be transferred to differential diagnostics in CI recipients to provide further explanation of unexpectedly poor WRS 65 (CI) values. We expect that certain damage mechanisms in hearing-impaired subjects and CI recipients may have a similar effect on rate dependence of EABRs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Stimulus Repetition Rate on Electrically Evoked Auditory Brainstem Potentials in Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients

Dziemba,

Brzoska,

Hocke

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: By using outcome prediction scores, it is possible to distinguish between good and poor performers with cochlear implants (CI) after CI implantation. The reasons for poor performance, despite good basic conditions, can be manifold. On the one hand, the postoperative fitting may be inadequate; on the other, neurophysiological disease processes may impair speech understanding with a CI. These disease processes are not yet fully understood. In acoustics, it is known that the auditory brainstem responses (ABR) and their latencies and amplitudes allow differential diagnosis based on reference values for normal-hearing individuals. The aim of this study was to provide reference values for electrically evoked brainstem responses (EABRs) in terms of rate-dependent latencies and amplitudes. Methods: 20 ears of 18 experienced adult CI recipients with a predicted and measured good postoperative word recognition score were recruited from the clinic’s patient pool. In the same stimulation mode and intensity we measured latencies and interpeak-latencies of EABRs and electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs). With a defined supra-threshold stimulation intensity above the individual ECAP threshold, we applied stimulation at several rates between 11 and 91 stimuli per second. Results: We found rate dependences for EABR latency t3 and t5 in the order of 0.19 ms and 0.37 ms, respectively, while ECAP was not affected by rate. Correspondingly, the interpeak intervals’ rate dependences for t5−t1, t5−t3 and t3−t1 were of the order of 0.37 ms, 0.18 ms and 0.19 ms. Comparing the EABR amplitudes between the stimulation rates 11/s and 81/s, we found that at 81/s the amplitudes were significantly reduced down: to 73% for A3 and 81% for A5. These rate dependences of latency and amplitude in EABR have characteristics comparable to those of acoustic ABR. Conclusions: These data may serve to provide reference values for EABR and ECAP latencies, interpeak intervals and amplitudes with respect to stimulation rate. Altered response patterns of ECAPs and EABRs to normalised stimulation modes could be used in the future to describe and classify neuropathological processes in a better-differentiated way.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effects of Stimulus Repetition Rate on Electrically Evoked Auditory Brainstem Potentials in Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients

Dziemba,

Brzoska,

Hocke

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interlatency I-III and III-V are also increased, but to a lesser extent than I-V [23]. These changes recover progressively with age, with amplitudes at 3 months and latencies at 1 year equaling those of adults [24]. Some authors have described the latencies of neonates [17,20], expressed in ms (Table 2).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Auditory Brainstem Response (Abr)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Precocious Auditory Evoked Potential Recording with Free-Field Stimulus

Castillo¹,

Martínez²,

Purriños³

2022

Auditory System - Function and Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to determine the thresholds of normality in the recording of precocious auditory evoked potentials with free-field stimulation and to compare them with conventional stimulation with insertion headphones. For this purpose, we have carried out a case series study of children with normal hearing stimulated with insertion headphones, who underwent Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) and Auditory Steady-State Response (ASSR) with free-field stimuli. Fifty-four ears with normal criteria of children between 6 months and 24 months of age were assessed. The latencies found with free-field stimulation in ABR were significantly longer than the latencies with insert earphone stimulation (p<0.05), and no differences were found in the inter-latencies. No significant differences were found in the thresholds of the ASSR response. We conclude that the ABR thresholds obtained in the free-field correspond to the delay due to the distance of the sound source to the eardrum and, therefore, are superimposable, being applicable to patients where it is not possible to stimulate with insert phones.

show abstract