These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Can auditory brain stem response accurately reflect the cochlear function?
    Author: Ding D, Zhang J, Li W, Li D, Yu J, Wu X, Qi W, Liu F, Jiang H, Shi H, Sun H, Li P, Huang W, Salvi R.
    Journal: J Neurophysiol; 2020 Dec 01; 124(6):1667-1675. PubMed ID: 33026904.
    Abstract:
    Auditory brain stem response (ABR) and compound action potential (CAP) recordings have been used in animal research to determine hearing sensitivity. Because of the relative ease of testing, the ABR test has been more commonly used in assessing cochlear lesions than the CAP test. The purpose of this experiment is to examine the difference between these two methods in monitoring the dynamic changes in auditory function after cochlear damage and in detecting asymmetric hearing loss due to unilateral cochlear damage. ABR and CAP were measured in two models of cochlear damage: acoustic trauma induced by exposure to a narrowband noise centered at 4 kHz (2,800-5,600 Hz) at 105 dB sound pressure level for 5 h in chinchillas and unilateral cochlear damage induced by surgical destruction of one cochlea in guinea pigs. Cochlear hair cells were quantified after completing the evoked potential testing. In the noise-damaged model, we found different recovery patterns between ABR and CAP. At 1 day after noise exposure, the ABR and CAP assessment revealed a similar level of threshold shifts. However, at 30 days after noise exposure, ABR thresholds displayed an average of 20-dB recovery, whereas CAP thresholds showed no recovery. Notably, the CAP threshold signifies the actual condition of sensory cell pathogenesis in the cochlea because sensory cell death is known to be irreversible in mammals. After unilateral cochlear damage, we found that both CAP and ABR were affected by cross-hearing when testing the damaged ear with the testing stimuli delivered directly into the canal of the damaged ear. When cross-hearing occurred, ABR testing was not able to reveal the presence of cross-hearing because the ABR waveform generated by cross-stimulation was indistinguishable from that generated by the test ear (damaged ear), should the test ear be intact. However, CAP testing can provide a warning sign, since the typical CAP waveform became an ABR-like waveform when cross-hearing occurred. Our study demonstrates two advantages of the CAP test over the ABR test in assessing cochlear lesions: contributing evidence for the occurrence of cross-hearing when subjects have asymmetric hearing loss and providing a better assessment of the progression of cochlear pathogenesis.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Auditory brain stem response (ABR) is more commonly used to evaluate cochlear lesions than cochlear compound action potential (CAP). In a noise-induced cochlear damage model, we found that the reduced CAP and enhanced ABR caused the threshold difference. In a unilateral cochlear destruction model, a shadow curve of the ABR from the contralateral healthy ear masked the hearing loss in the destroyed ear.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]