Related Experiment Videos
Normative Wave V latency-intensity functions using the EARTONE 3A insert earphone and the Radioear B-71 bone vibrator
1Department of Communicative Disorders, California State University, Long Beach 90840, USA. BeattieR@CSULB.edu
Scandinavian Audiology
|June 25, 1998
Summary
This study provides normative data for auditory brainstem response (ABR) Wave V latency using air and bone conduction in normal-hearing individuals. Findings suggest specific latency corrections are needed for accurate comparisons, rather than a single adjustment value.
Area of Science:
- Audiology
- Neuroscience
- Hearing Science
Background:
- Auditory brainstem response (ABR) audiometry is crucial for assessing hearing sensitivity in infants and difficult-to-test populations.
- Bone-conducted stimuli are increasingly recommended alongside air-conducted stimuli for infant hearing loss screening and conductive hearing loss assessment.
Purpose of the Study:
- To collect normative Wave V latency-intensity data using both insert earphones (air-conduction) and bone vibrators (bone-conduction).
- To investigate the differences in latency-intensity functions between air-conducted and bone-conducted stimuli in normal-hearing subjects.
Main Methods:
- Forty normal-hearing subjects were tested with air-conducted and bone-conducted clicks at various intensity levels (55 to 10 dB SL).
- Wave V latency was measured for both stimulus types, noting a 0.1 ms click onset delay for the insert earphone, which was not adjusted for in the latency measurements.
Main Results:
- Both air and bone conduction showed Wave V latencies of 7.0 ms at 55 dB SL.
- Latencies increased as intensity decreased, with air-conducted clicks generally yielding longer latencies than bone-conducted clicks.
- Specific latency corrections for bone conduction were identified, varying by intensity level (e.g., +0.3 ms at 40 dB, +0.8 ms at 10 dB nHL).
Conclusions:
- A single, fixed correction value is likely inappropriate for the entire latency-intensity function when comparing air and bone conduction ABR data.
- Clinicians should use normative data collected with similar procedures or generate their own.
- Comparing ABR air-conduction and bone-conduction thresholds is a viable alternative, as thresholds are less sensitive to minor procedural variations than latency measures.