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: Auditory brainstem response (ABR) to rarefaction and condensation clicks in normal and abnormal ears.
    Author: Borg E, Löfqvist L.
    Journal: Scand Audiol; 1982; 11(4):227-35. PubMed ID: 7163765.
    Abstract:
    The shift in latency of wave V in ABR upon the reversal of stimulus phase was investigated in a normal-hearing reference material (65 ears) and in 20 ears of conductive hearing loss, 29 ears of steep high-frequency hearing loss and 17 ears of acoustic neurinoma or cerebellopontine angle tumor. In addition, reproducibility was studied in the reference material. The stimulus was a 2.0-kHz haversine wave at 75 or 35 dB nHL delivered at the rate of 20 Hz. 2000 responses were averaged for each stimulus phase. Electrodes were placed on the vertex and on ipsilateral mastoid. Stimulus wave form was determined in a 6-cc coupler and in a few cases with a miniature electrete microphone in the ear canal. In the reference material, a significant difference of the wave V latency between the condensation (C) and rarefaction (R) stimulus was observed. When taking the absolute difference, the mean value was 0.15 ms at 75 dB nHL. This time difference corresponds to a frequency of 3-4 kHz. In high frequency cochlear loss, the C-R difference increased in proportion to the downward shift in frequency of the high frequency slope of the audiogram. In conductive hearing loss, the C-R difference was similar to that of the reference material. In retrocochlear cases, the C-R difference was unpredictable, but was remarkably often small compared with the V latency. It was concluded that the difference in wave V latency between C and R clicks provides information about the excitation pattern in the inner ear but it is not reliable enough to give more than a rough estimate of the individual frequency of generation of ABR. The results are arguments against the use of the alternating stimulus phase as a routine procedure.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]