Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Comparing Simultaneous Electrocochleography and Auditory Brainstem Response Measurements Using Three Different Extratympanic Electrodes.

Authors
  • Lefler, Shannon M1, 2
  • Kaf, Wafaa A1
  • Ferraro, John A3
  • 1 Communications Sciences and Disorders Department, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri.
  • 2 Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri.
  • 3 Department of Hearing and Speech, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Type
Published Article
Journal
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
Publisher
American Academy of Audiology
Publication Date
Jun 01, 2021
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
339–346
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727273
PMID: 34082461
Source
Medline
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

Various extratympanic recording electrodes have been used to make electrocochleography (ECochG) and auditory brainstem response (ABR) measurements in clinics, translational research, and basic science laboratories. However, differences may exist in ECochG and ABR measurements depending on the different types of extratympanic electrodes that are used. The purpose of this research is to compare simultaneously recorded ECochG and ABR responses using three different extratympanic electrodes. This research helps clinicians and researchers to understand how electrode types and recording sites influence EcochG and ABR results. In addition, our findings could provide more normative data to the ECochG and ABR literature as well as give perspective on a preferred electrode approach when performing simultaneous ECochG and ABR testing. Ours was a repeated-measures study with measurements being made from individual participants on two separate sessions. Twenty young adult females with normal hearing. A three-channel recording system was used to simultaneously record ECochG and ABR measurements in response to alternating polarity click stimuli. In each session, measurements were simultaneously recorded with a TipTrode electrode and one of the tympanic membrane (TM) electrodes. Suprathreshold summating potential (SP) and action potential (AP) of the ECochG and waves I, III, and V of the ABR, and threshold responses (AP and wave V) were identified. Compared with the ear canal TipTrode electrode, TM electrodes yielded suprathreshold amplitudes that were larger than those from the ear canal electrode, smaller SP-AP ratios, lower AP thresholds, and less variability. These findings can help guide choices made by clinicians, translational investigators, and basic science researchers on which type of extra-tympanic electrode to use for their intended purpose. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times