You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 135 No. 5, May 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Neurology
 •Neuro-otology
 •Audiology
 •Hearing Loss/ Deafness
 •Diagnosis
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The Clinical Value of the Multiple-Frequency 80-Hz Auditory Steady-State Response in Adults With Normal Hearing and Hearing Loss

Wendy D’haenens, MSc; Ingeborg Dhooge, MD, PhD; Leen Maes, MSc; Annelies Bockstael, MSc; Hannah Keppler, MSc; Birgit Philips, MSc; Freya Swinnen, MSc; Bart M. Vinck, MSc, PhD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;135(5):496-506.

Objectives  To determine the ability of the air-conduction multiple-frequency auditory steady-state response (ASSR) technique to diagnose normal hearing (NH) and mild and moderate degrees of sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), to assess patients with conductive hearing loss (CHL), to evaluate flat and sloping configurations of hearing impairment, and to provide sensitivity and specificity values for various ASSR cutoff criteria.

Design  A comparative study between ASSR and criterion-standard behavioral thresholds.

Setting  Ear, nose, and throat department at a university hospital.

Patients  The study population comprised 40 adults with NH, 17 with SNHL, and 7 with CHL.

Main Outcome Measures  The measure of interest was the difference between ASSR and behavioral thresholds at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and efficiency were calculated for several ASSR cutoff criteria.

Results  The ASSR technique clearly distinguished moderate SNHL from NH, but the "mild SNHL and NH" and "mild SNHL and moderate SNHL" differentiation was particularly difficult at 0.5 and 2.0 kHz, respectively. Air-conduction ASSR thresholds accurately predicted behavioral thresholds in CHL. The ASSR system precisely reflected the flat and sloping configurations. Finally, the most appropriate ASSR cutoff point for normality seems to be the 30-dB-or-lower criterion.

Conclusions  In adults, the multiple-frequency 80-Hz ASSR technique can be used to determine the degree and configuration of hearing loss. Although air-conduction ASSR thresholds accurately predicted behavioral thresholds in CHL, future research with bone-conduction ASSRs is necessary to establish the type of hearing loss. Furthermore, the applicability of these findings still needs to be confirmed for infants.


Author Affiliations: Ear, Nose, and Throat Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.