Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 8/2019

01-08-2019 | Audiometry | Otology

Validity of correction factors applied to auditory steady-state responses (ASSRs) in normal hearing adults in chartr EP system

Authors: Zahra Ghasemahmad, Saeid Farahani

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 8/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Even though many patients undergoing auditory steady-state response (ASSR) testing have some degree of hearing loss, some have normal hearing and ASSR often overestimates the behavioral thresholds in this group. In most commercial ASSR systems such as Chartr EP, a default correction factor is applied to compensate for this difference. Little is known, however, as how the correction factor compensates for the difference between ASSR and pure tone audiometry (PTA) thresholds as a function of carrier or modulation frequency (MF) in a commercial ASSR system. Our goal is to evaluate this relationship.

Methods

Twenty-four normal hearing adults were examined for both PTA and ASSR (Chartr EP system, GN Otometrics). ASSR thresholds were obtained at three MFs (20, 40, and 80 Hz). The difference scores were obtained by subtracting PTA from ASSR thresholds at each frequency for each subject. The corrected ASSR thresholds, then, were compared with the PTA thresholds across MFs and carrier frequencies.

Results

The default correction factors in the ASSR equipment differed significantly from the difference scores at all MFs and carrier frequencies (n = 24, p < 0.005). The correlation between corrected ASSR and PTA thresholds at most MFs and carrier frequencies were medium to poor.

Conclusions

At most MFs and carrier frequencies, the default correction factors defined by the manufacturer do not compensate for the difference between ASSR and PTA thresholds in normal hearing adults. The use of the default correction factors in Chartr EP system for the normal hearing adults needs special considerations.
Footnotes
1
Correction factors are measured based on the difference between ASSR and PTA thresholds in subjects with a wide age and hearing range.
 
2
Static compliance less than 0.3 or more than 1.6 cc and middle ear pressure less than -100 or more than + 50 dapa.
 
Literature
1.
Dobie RA, Van Hemel S (2004) Testing adult hearing: conclusions and recommendations. In: Hearing loss: determining eligibility for social security benefits. National Academies Press, Washington
2.
Sininger YS, Abdala C (1996) Hearing threshold as measured by auditory brain stem response in human neonates. Ear Hear 17:395–401CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hall JW, Rupp KA (1997) Auditory brainstem response: recent developments in recording and analysis. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 53:21–45PubMed
4.
Stapells DR, Oates P (1997) Estimation of the pure-tone audiogram by the auditory brainstem response: a review. Audiol Neurootol 2:257–280CrossRefPubMed
5.
Wagner W, Plinkert PK (1999) The relationship between auditory threshold and evoked otoacoustic emissions. Eur arch otorhinolaryngol 256:177–188CrossRefPubMed
6.
Dimitrijevic A, John MS, Van Roon P et al (2002) Estimating the audiogram using multiple auditory steady-state responses. J Am Acad Audiol 13:205–224PubMed
7.
Purcell DW, John SM, Schneider SM, Picton TW (2004) Human temporal auditory acuity as assessed by envelope following responses. J Acoust Soc Am 116:3581–3593CrossRefPubMed
8.
Picton TW, John MS, Dimitrijevic A, Purcell D (2003) Human auditory steady-state responses. Int J Audiol 42:177–219CrossRef
9.
Petitot C, Collett L, Durrant JD (2005) Auditory steady-state responses (ASSR): effects of modulation and carrier frequencies. Int J Audiol 44:567–573CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ozdek A, Karacay M et al (2010) Comparison of pure tone audiometry and auditory steady-state responses in subjects with normal hearing and hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267:43–49CrossRefPubMed
11.
Herdman AT, Stapells DR (2003) Auditory steady-state response thresholds of adults with sensorineural hearing impairments. Int J Audiol 42:237–248CrossRefPubMed
12.
Picton TW, Dimitrijevic A, Perez-Abalo MC, Van Roon P (2005) Estimating audiometric thresholds using auditory steady-state responses. J Am Acad Audiol 16:140–156CrossRefPubMed
13.
Lee MY, Ahn SY et al (2016) Narrow band CE-Chirp auditory steady-state response is more reliable than the conventional ASSR in predicting the behavioral hearing threshold. Auris Nasus Larynx 43:259–268CrossRefPubMed
14.
Jalaei B, Shaabani M, Zakaria MN (2017) Mode of recording and modulation frequency effects of auditory steady state response thresholds. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 83:10–15CrossRefPubMed
15.
Hatzopoulos S, Prosser S et al (2010) Threshold estimation in adult normal-and impaired-hearing subjects using auditory steady-state responses. Med Sci Monit 16:21–27
16.
Hatzopoulos S, Petruccelli J et al (2012) Hearing threshold prediction with Auditory Steady State Responses and estimation of correction functions to compensate for differences with behavioral data, in adult subjects: Part 1: Audera and Chartr EP devices. Med Sci Monit 18:47–53CrossRef
17.
Carhart R, Jerger JF (1959) Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J speech hear disord 24(4):330–345CrossRef
18.
Cone-Wesson B, Dowell RC, Tomlin D, Rance G, Ming WJ (2002) The auditory steady-state response: comparisons with the auditory brainstem response. J Am Acad Audiol 13:173–187PubMed
19.
John MS, Lins OG, Boucher BL, Picton TW (1998) Multiple auditory steady-state responses (MASTER): stimulus and recording parameters. Audiology 37:59–82CrossRefPubMed
20.
Van Maanen A, Stapells DR (2005) Comparison of multiple auditory steady-state responses (80 vs 40 Hz) and slow cortical potentials for threshold estimation in hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 44:613–624CrossRefPubMed
21.
Savio G, Cardenas J, Perez Abalo M, Gonzalez A, Valdes J (2001) The low and high frequency auditory steady state responses mature at different rates. Audiol Neurotol 6:279–287CrossRef
22.
Ross B, Draganova R, Picton TW, Pantev C (2003) Frequency specificity of 40-Hz auditory steady-state responses. Hear Res 186:57–68CrossRefPubMed
23.
Picton TW, van Roon P, John MS (2009) Multiple auditory steady state responses (80–101 Hz): effects of ear, gender, handedness, intensity and modulation rate. Ear Hear 30:100–109CrossRefPubMed
24.
Herdman AT, Stapells DR (2001) Thresholds determined using the monotic and dichotic multiple auditory steady-state response technique in normal-hearing subjects. Scan Audiol 30:41–49CrossRef
25.
Komazec Z, Lemajić-Komazec S, Jović R, Nadj Č, Jovančević L, Savović S (2010) Comparison between auditory steady-state responses and pure-tone audiometry. Vojnosanit pregl 67:761–765CrossRefPubMed
26.
Sininger YS, Hunter LL, Hayes D, Roush PA, Uhler KM (2018) Evaluation of speed and accuracy of next-generation auditory steady state response and auditory brainstem response audiometry in children with normal hearing and hearing loss. Ear Hear 39:1207–1223CrossRef
27.
Aimoni C, Crema L et al (2018) Hearing threshold estimation by auditory steady state responses (ASSR) in children. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 38:361–368PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Rance G, Rickards F (2002) Prediction of hearing threshold in infants using auditory steady-state evoked potentials. J Am Acad Audiol 13:236–245PubMed
29.
Tlumak AI, Durrant JD, Delgado RE, Boston JR (2012) Steady-state analysis of auditory evoked potentials over a wide range of stimulus repetition rates: Profile in children vs adults. Int J Audiol 51:480–490CrossRefPubMed
30.
Stapells DR (2011) Frequency-specific ABR and ASSR threshold assessment in young infants. In: Tharpe AM, Seewald R (eds) Comprehensive handbook of pediatric audiology, 1st edn. Plural Publishing, San Diego, pp 409–448
31.
Scherf F, Brokx J, Wuyts FL, Van de Heyning PH (2006) The ASSR: clinical application in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired infants and adults, comparison with the click-evoked ABR and pure-tone audiometry. Int J Audiol 45:281–286CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Validity of correction factors applied to auditory steady-state responses (ASSRs) in normal hearing adults in chartr EP system
Authors
Zahra Ghasemahmad
Saeid Farahani
Publication date
01-08-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05451-3

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 8/2019 Go to the issue

Head & Neck

Clinical application of supraclavicular flap for head and neck reconstruction

Correction

Correction to: Compare two surgical interventions for otitis media with effusion in young children

Otology

Pars tensa and tympanicomalleal joint: proposal for a new anatomic classification

Rhinology

Current concepts in advanced sinonasal mucosal melanoma: a single institution experience

Otology

CT-scan contouring technique allows for direct and reliable measurements of the cochlear duct length: implication in cochlear implantation with straight electrode-arrays

Otology

Benefits of a contralateral routing of signal device for unilateral Naída CI cochlear implant recipients