Threshold prediction using the auditory steady-state response and the tone burst auditory brain stem response: a
Tiffany A Johnson1, Carolyn J Brown
1Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. johnsonta@boystown.org
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy with which auditory steady-state response (ASSR) and tone burst auditory brain stem response (ABR) thresholds predict behavioral thresholds, using a within-subjects design. Because the spectra of the stimuli used to evoke the ABR and the ASSR differ, it was hypothesized that the predictive accuracy also would differ, particularly in subjects with steeply sloping hearing losses.
Design:
ASSR and ABR thresholds were recorded in a group of 14 adults with normal hearing, 10 adults with flat, sensorineural hearing losses, and 10 adults with steeply sloping, high-frequency, sensorineural hearing losses. Evoked-potential thresholds were recorded at 1, 1.5, and 2 kHz and were compared with behavioral, pure-tone thresholds. The predictive accuracy of two ABR protocols was evaluated: Blackman-gated tone bursts and linear-gated tone bursts presented in a background of notched noise. Two ASSR stimulation protocols also were evaluated: 100% amplitude-modulated (AM) sinusoids and 100% AM plus 25% frequency-modulated (FM) sinusoids.
Results:
The results suggested there was no difference in the accuracy with which either ABR protocol predicted behavioral threshold, nor was there any difference in the predictive accuracy of the two ASSR protocols. On average, ABR thresholds were recorded 3 dB closer to behavioral threshold than ASSR thresholds. However, in the subjects with the most steeply sloping hearing losses, ABR thresholds were recorded as much as 25 dB below behavioral threshold, whereas ASSR thresholds were never recorded more than 5 dB below behavioral threshold, which may reflect more spread of excitation for the ABR than for the ASSR. In contrast, the ASSR overestimated behavioral threshold in two subjects with normal hearing, where the ABR provided a more accurate prediction of behavioral threshold.
Conclusions:
Both the ABR and the ASSR provided reasonably accurate predictions of behavioral threshold across the three subject groups. There was no evidence that the predictive accuracy of the ABR evoked using Blackman-gated tone bursts differed from the predictive accuracy observed when linear-gated tone bursts were presented in conjunction with notched noise. Similarly, there was no evidence that the predictive accuracy of the AM ASSR differed from the AM/FM ASSR. In general, ABR thresholds were recorded at levels closer to behavioral threshold than the ASSR. For certain individuals with steeply sloping hearing losses, the ASSR may be a more accurate predictor of behavioral thresholds; however, the ABR may be a more appropriate choice when predicting behavioral thresholds in a population where the incidence of normal hearing is expected to be high.
