Intra-subject variability in the auditory brainstem response using a vertical montage recording

Abstract

Purpose: The present study investigated the intra-subject variability in auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) recorded using a vertical montage and compared the results with the ABRs recorded using an ipsilateral montage.Methods: A total of 31 adults with normal hearing were involved in this study. The ABRs from vertical and ipsilateral montages were recorded at 80, 50, and 30 dBnHL using 0.1 ms click stimuli on the right ear with a stimulus rate of 19.1 Hz. Each participant was tested in two clinical sessions with a 7-day interval between sessions. The ABR results between the sessions and montages were compared and statistically evaluated. Results: The ABR results were generally consistent between the two sessions in both the ipsilateral and vertical montages. The test-retest mean differences (test session 2 minus test session 1) between the ipsilateral ABR and vertical montage ABR results were also similar. Coefficient of variation values indicated that more variability was associated with smaller amplitude ABRs than higher amplitude ABRs. Conclusion: The ABR recorded through the vertical montage had, in general, a similar reliability to the ABR recorded using the ipsilateral montage.

Test-Retest Reliability of Level-Specific CE-Chirp Auditory Brainstem Response in Normal-Hearing Adults

“…The reliability analysis of the wave (I, III, V) amplitudes in the ABR to the click and LS CE-Chirp ® stimuli in the present study is somewhat consistent with previous studies [ 17 , 20 , 27 - 29 ]. While the consistency of the waves’ amplitude at multiple intensity levels within the same session and between sessions agrees with the literature, the higher ICC values (moderate-excellent) are contradictory to past findings.…”

“…The test-retest reliability findings for the absolute wave latencies (I, III, and V) in both the ABR to the click and LS CE-Chirp ® stimuli are consistent with the previous literature from the ABR to the click stimulus [17][18][19]23] and the ABR to the CE-Chirp ® stimulus [20]. The present study further suggests the ABR absolute latencies elicited from the LS CE-Chirp ® are as consistent and reliable as the ABR to the click stimulus and the previous version of CE-Chirp.…”

“…While the consistency of the waves’ amplitude at multiple intensity levels within the same session and between sessions agrees with the literature, the higher ICC values (moderate-excellent) are contradictory to past findings. Dzulkarnain, et al [ 17 ] in their study found higher variations in the ABR wave amplitudes as compared to the ABR latencies and higher variations in the ABR of later waves as compared to the early waves. The signal averaging strategies used is one of the possible reasons for these differences.…”

“…There is scant evidence on the test-retest reliability of ABR to the LS CE-Chirp ® stimulus. Contrastingly, the test-retest reliability has been well studied in the ABR recorded to the click stimulus [ 17 - 19 ] and has been investigated in a single study using a traditional rising chirp stimulus [ 20 ]. Previous studies on test-retest reliability results from ABR to the click stimulus revealed that the ABR results in normal hearing subjects can be consistently recorded within the same session and between different clinical sessions separated by a few days and up to two years [ 17 - 19 , 21 - 23 ].…”

“…Contrastingly, the test-retest reliability has been well studied in the ABR recorded to the click stimulus [ 17 - 19 ] and has been investigated in a single study using a traditional rising chirp stimulus [ 20 ]. Previous studies on test-retest reliability results from ABR to the click stimulus revealed that the ABR results in normal hearing subjects can be consistently recorded within the same session and between different clinical sessions separated by a few days and up to two years [ 17 - 19 , 21 - 23 ]. Cobb and Stuart [ 20 ] is the only study that investigated the test-retest reliability using the traditional upward rising chirp stimuli on thirty healthy newborns.…”