The Auditory Brainstem Responses in Patients with Unilateral Cochlear Hearing Loss
The aim of our study is to analyze changes occurring in the auditory brainstem response (ABR) according to stimulus parameters in unilateral cochlear hearing loss cases. Twenty-nine cases (14 male, 15 female) with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) were investigated. All cases had cochlear SNHL on one side whereas normal hearing on the other side. All cases underwent ABR testing with varying stimulus intensity levels and stimulus repetition rates (SRRs). Results were compared and their correlation with audiogram shapes investigated. As stimulus intensity levels decreased on both ears, latencies expanded and amplitudes decreased in all traces of ABR. Latencies of ears with cochlear hearing loss were observed to be longer than those in normal ears. Responses to SRR increases were similar on both ears. Audiogram shapes should be taken into consideration while performing ABR in order to address asymmetric SNHL. The interpretation of ABR changes with various stimulus levels may provide a better understanding of cochlear pathologies associated with hearing loss in the future.
KeywordsThe auditory brainstem response Unilateral cochlear hearing loss Stimulus intensity Stimulus repetition rate
Conflict of Interest
The authors do not have any financial relationship with any organization and have no conflict of interest.
- 7.Picton TW, Stapells DR, Campbell KB (1983) Effect of stimulus repetition rate on the auditory brainstem responses. Am J Otol 4:226–234Google Scholar
- 12.vd Drift JF, Brocaar MP, von Zanten GA, Lamore PJ (1988) Inaccuracies in the measurement of auditory brainstem response data in normal hearing and cochlear hearing loss. Audiology 27:109–118Google Scholar
- 17.Hyde ML (1985) The effect of cochlear lesions on the ABR. In: Jacobson JT (ed) The auditory brainstem response, 3rd edn. College Hill Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 25.Yagi T, Kaga K (1979) The effect of click repetition rate on latency on the auditory brainstem responses and the clinical use for neurological diagnosis. Arch Otolaryngol 222:91–97Google Scholar