Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2026

Data Acquisition and Analysis In Brainstem Evoked Response Audiometry In Mice
Published on: May 10, 2019
Preserved Auditory Steady State Response and Envelope-Following Response in Severe Brainstem Dysfunction Highlight
Macarena Díaz1, Federico Lucchetti2, Paul Avan3
1Bio-, Electro- and Mechanical Systems Department, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Insights
Auditory Steady State Response (ASSR) testing may miss severe pediatric brainstem dysfunction. Envelope-Following Response (EFR) and Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) testing are more sensitive for diagnosing these auditory pathway issues.
Area of Science:
- Neuroscience
- Audiology
- Pediatrics
Background:
- Auditory Steady State Response (ASSR) systems are standard for objective pediatric hearing threshold assessment.
- ASSRs in sleeping children are typically of subcortical origin, with the inferior colliculus as a major contributor.
- Severe brainstem dysfunction can impact auditory pathway responses, necessitating sensitive diagnostic tools.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the sensitivity of ASSR, Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR), and Envelope-Following Response (EFR) in diagnosing severe pediatric brainstem dysfunction.
- To differentiate peripheral (cochlear nerve) from central (brainstem) auditory pathway function using EFRs in sleeping children.
- To compare the diagnostic utility of different objective auditory electrophysiological tests in cases of brainstem dysfunction.
Main Methods:
- Conducted a neurophysiological assessment on 3 sleeping children with severe brainstem dysfunction.
- Utilized standard audiological tests including tympanometry, distortion product otoacoustic emissions, click-evoked ABRs, and ASSRs.
- Recorded EFRs using horizontal (EFR-H) and vertical (EFR-V) channels with a stimulus phase rotation technique to isolate and measure latency and phase-locking.
Main Results:
- Children with brainstem dysfunction showed abnormal ABR central waves but normal cochlear nerve function (ABR wave I, summating potential, cochlear microphonic potential).
- EFR-H recordings indicated normal cochlear nerve function, while EFR-V showed abnormal latencies and phase-locking, suggesting central auditory pathway involvement.
- ASSR audiograms in two cases provided normal or slightly elevated thresholds, failing to detect the underlying brainstem dysfunction, unlike ABR and EFR.
Conclusions:
- ASSR testing lacks sensitivity for severe pediatric brainstem dysfunction, potentially leading to missed diagnoses.
- EFR recordings, particularly EFR-V, demonstrate greater sensitivity in detecting central auditory pathway abnormalities compared to ASSR.
- The Cross-Check Principle, incorporating ABR and EFR alongside or instead of ASSR, is crucial for comprehensive auditory assessment in pediatric cases with suspected brainstem dysfunction.
Objectives:
Commercially available auditory steady state response (ASSR) systems are widely used to obtain hearing thresholds in the pediatric population objectively. Children are often examined during natural or induced sleep so that the recorded ASSRs are of subcortical origin, the inferior colliculus being often designated as the main ASSR contributor in these conditions. This report presents data from a battery of auditory neurophysiological objective tests obtained in 3 cases of severe brainstem dysfunction in sleeping children. In addition to ASSRs, envelope-following response (EFR) recordings designed to distinguish peripheral (cochlear nerve) from central (brainstem) were recorded to document the effect of brainstem dysfunction on the two types of phase-locked responses.
Design:
Results obtained in the 3 children with severe brainstem dysfunctions were compared with those of age-matched controls. The cases were identified as posterior fossa tumor, undiagnosed (UD), and Pelizaeus-Merzbacher-Like Disease. The standard audiological objective tests comprised tympanograms, distortion product otoacoustic emissions, click-evoked auditory brainstem responses (ABRs), and ASSRs. EFRs were recorded using horizontal (EFR-H) and vertical (EFR-V) channels and a stimulus phase rotation technique allowing isolation of the EFR waveforms in the time domain to obtain direct latency measurements.
Results:
The brainstem dysfunctions of the 3 children were revealed as abnormal (weak, absent, or delayed) ABRs central waves with a normal wave I. In addition, they all presented a summating and cochlear microphonic potential in their ABRs, coupled with a normal wave I, which implies normal cochlear and cochlear nerve function. EFR-H and EFR-V waveforms were identified in the two cases in whom they were recorded. The EFR-Hs onset latencies, response durations, and phase-locking values did not differ from their respective age-matched control values, indicating normal cochlear nerve EFRs. In contrast, the EFR-V phase-locking value and onset latency varied from their control values. Both patients had abnormal but identifiable and significantly phase-locked brainstem EFRs, even in a case with severely distorted ABR central waves. ASSR objective audiograms were recorded in two cases. They showed normal or slightly elevated (explained by a slight transmission loss) thresholds that do not yield any clue about their brainstem dysfunction, revealing the method's lack of sensitivity to severe brainstem dysfunction.
Conclusions:
The present study, performed on 3 sleeping children with severe brainstem dysfunction but normal cochlear responses (cochlear microphonic potential, summating potential, and ABR wave I), revealed the differential sensitivity of three auditory electrophysiological techniques. Estimated thresholds obtained by standard ASSR recordings (cases UD and Pelizaeus-Merzbacher-Like Disease) provided no clue to the brainstem dysfunction clearly revealed by the click-evoked ABR. EFR recordings (cases posterior fossa tumor and UD) showed preserved central responses with abnormal latencies and low phase-locking values, whereas the peripheral EFR attributed to the cochlear nerve was normal. The one case (UD) for which the three techniques could be performed confirms this sensitivity gradient, emphasizing the need for applying the Cross-Check Principle by avoiding resorting to ASSR recording alone. The entirely normal EFR-H recordings observed in two cases further strengthen the hypothesis of its cochlear nerve origin in sleeping children.
Related Concept Videos
Effects of EDTA on End-Point Detection Methods
In the visual method, metal-ion indicators (metallochromic dyes), which have distinct colors in their free and complex forms, are added to the mixture to signal the titration's end point. They form stable complexes with metal ions, but these complexes are weaker than the corresponding metal–EDTA complexes. As a result, EDTA...
Interference and Decay
Interference occurs when competing memories hinder the retrieval of particular information. It can be classified into two types: proactive and retroactive interference. Proactive...

