Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Analysis of Click ABR and Multi-ASSR in Assessing Infant Hearing: A Cross-Sectional Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: This study investigates the comparative effectiveness of Click Auditory Brainstem Response (Click ABR) and Multiple Auditory Steady-State Response (Multi-ASSR) in identifying hearing impairments in infants. Recognizing auditory issues early is crucial for a child’s cognitive and language development, as emphasized by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) and the American Academy of Audiology (AAA). While Click ABR is widely utilized, Multi-ASSR offers a modern technique for detailed hearing assessment. Methods: A comparative analysis was conducted on 111 infants aged 1–6 months, previously screened for hearing at a tertiary care centre. The study employed both Click ABR and Multi-ASSR to evaluate their respective efficacy in assessing infant hearing. Results: Click ABR detected normal hearing in 87.4% of the infants, slightly higher than Multi-ASSR’s 84.7%. A noteworthy finding was the higher incidence of bilateral versus unilateral hearing loss, with Click ABR identifying bilateral loss in 10 infants and unilateral loss in 4, compared to Multi-ASSR, which found bilateral loss in 12 infants and unilateral loss in 5. There was a minor but significant difference in auditory thresholds between the methods, with a mean discrepancy of 1.2 dB and a significant statistical variance (t-value of 15; p < 0.001), indicating variations in sensitivity. Conclusion: Both Click ABR and Multi-ASSR are indispensable tools in paediatric audiology, each with unique advantages. Click ABR excels in efficiency, suitable for rapid assessments and early detection. In contrast, Multi-ASSR offers comprehensive frequency-specific data, facilitating thorough evaluations. Healthcare professionals must grasp these methods’ strengths to optimize infant hearing screenings and enhance early intervention strategies, aligning with JCIH and AAA guidelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Moeller MP (2007) Current state of knowledge: psychosocial development in children with hearing impairment. Ear Hear 28(6):729–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) (2019) Year 2019 position Statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. American Academy of Pediatrics. https://www.jcih.org/

  3. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing, American Academy of Audiology, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, & (2000) Year 2000 position statement: principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Paediatrics 106(4):798–817Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies

  4. Yoshinaga-Itano C, Sedey AL, Coulter DK, Mehl AL (1998) Language of early- and later-identified children with hearing loss. Paediatrics 102(5):1161–1171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Stapells DR (2000) Threshold estimation by the tone-evoked auditory brainstem response: a literature meta-analysis. J Speech-Language Pathol Audiol 24(2):74

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sininger YS, Cone-Wesson B (2004) Asymmetric cochlear processing mimics hemispheric specialization. Science 305(5687):1581–1581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cone-Wesson B, Rickards FW (1990) The auditory steady-state response: comparisons with the auditory brainstem response. J Acoust Soc Am 87(3):1311–1321

    Google Scholar 

  8. Picton TW, John MS, Dimitrijevic A, Purcell D (2003) Human auditory steady-state responses. Int J Audiol 42(4):177–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dimitrijevic A, John MS, Van Roon P, Picton TW (2001) Human auditory steady-state responses to tones independently modulated in both frequency and amplitude. Ear Hear 22(2):100–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. World Health Organization (2010) Newborn and infant hearing screening: current issues and guiding principles for action. WHO Report

  11. Stapells DR, Gravel JS, Martin BA (1995) Thresholds for auditory brain stem responses to tones in notched noise from infants and young children with normal hearing or sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear 16(4):361–371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cone-Wesson B, Ramirez GM (1997) Hearing sensitivity in newborns estimated from ABRs to bone-conducted sounds. J Am Acad Audiol, 8(5)

  13. Stapells DR, Herdman A, Small SA, Dimitrijevic A, Hatton J (2005) Status of the auditory steady-state responses for estimating an infant’s audiogram. In A Sound Foundation through Early Amplification: Proceedings of an International Conference (pp. 43–59)

  14. Roche JP, Huang BY, Castillo M, Bassim MK, Adunka OF, Buchman CA (2010) Imaging characteristics of children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Otology Neurotology: Official Publication Am Otological Soc Am Neurotology Soc Eur Acad Otology Neurotology 31(5):780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Maanen A, Stapells DR (2005) Comparison of multiple auditory steady-state responses (80 versus 40 hz) and slow cortical potentials for threshold estimation in hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 44(11):613–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Musiek FE, Chermak GD (2015) Psychophysical and behavioural peripheral and central auditory tests. Handb Clin Neurol 129:313–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend our heartfelt appreciation to the ENT-HNS team at Command Hospital Airforce, Bangalore, especially the dedicated audiology and technical teams. Our gratitude goes to the participating parents and guardians for their trust and involvement. Additionally, our sincere thanks are directed to our peers, reviewers, and families for their unwavering encouragement and insights.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific funding from agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of ENT-HNS, Command Hospital Airforce, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

    Sanjay Kumar, Anghusman Dutta & Marlapudi Sudheer Kumar

  2. Audiologist & Speech-Language Pathologist, Department of ENT-HNS, Command Hospital Airforce, Bangalore, India

    Rashmi Natraj

  3. Department of Anaesthesia, Command Hospital Airforce, Bangalore, India

    Manish Gupta

Authors
  1. Sanjay Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anghusman Dutta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rashmi Natraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marlapudi Sudheer Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Manish Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjay Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest in connection with this study.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Nil.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study or their legal guardians.

Patients’ Consent Form

We secured consent forms from all participants or their legal guardians. These documents, which detail the study’s nature and scope, are stored securely by us and can be furnished upon legitimate request.

Ethical Approval

We obtained the requisite ethical clearance for our study from the ethics committee at Command Hospital Airforce, Bangalore.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, S., Dutta, A., Natraj, R. et al. A Comparative Analysis of Click ABR and Multi-ASSR in Assessing Infant Hearing: A Cross-Sectional Study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 76, 3176–3182 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-024-04639-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-024-04639-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation