Towards optimal selection of stimuli polarity method for effective evoking auditory brainstem responses.

Towards eliminating stimulus artifacts, alternating polarity stimuli have been widely adopted in eliciting the auditory brainstem response. However, considering the difference in the physiologic basis of the positive and negative polarity stimuli on the auditory system, it is unclear whether alternating polarity stimuli would adversely affect the auditory brainstem response characteristics. This research proposes a new polarity method for stimulus artifacts elimination, Sum polarity, that separately utilized the rarefaction and condensation stimuli and then summed the two evoked responses. We compared the waveform morphology and latencies of the auditory brainstem responses evoked by familiar stimuli (including click, tone-burst, and chirp) with different polarity methods in normal-hearing subjects to investigate the new method's effectiveness. The experimental results showed that alternating polarity of the click and chirp had little effect on the auditory brainstem response. In contrast, alternating polarity affected the waveform morphology and latencies of the auditory brainstem responses to the low-frequency tone-burst, with the effect decreasing as the stimulus frequency increased. These results demonstrated the performance of any polarity method is related to the characteristics of the stimulus signal itself, and no polarity method is optimal for all types of stimuli. Based on the analysis of experimental results, a fixed polarity and alternating polarity were recommended for the click and chirp auditory brainstem responses, respectively. Furthermore, considering the apparent latency differences between the responses to opposite polarity stimuli, the Sum polarity was suggested for the tone-burst auditory brainstem responses. Moreover, this work verified the feasibility of the Sum polarity, which offers another choice for eliminating stimulus artifacts in an evoked potential acquisition.

[1]  S. Anderson,et al.  Peripheral deficits and phase-locking declines in aging adults , 2021, Hearing Research.

[2]  Nina Kraus,et al.  Analyzing the FFR: A tutorial for decoding the richness of auditory function , 2019, Hearing Research.

[3]  Oluwarotimi Williams Samuel,et al.  Comparing Auditory Brainstem Responses evoked by Click and Sweep-Tone in Normal-Hearing Adults , 2019, 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[4]  J. Arenberg,et al.  Polarity Sensitivity in Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2019, Trends in hearing.

[5]  L. W. Norrix,et al.  Clinicians' Guide to Obtaining a Valid Auditory Brainstem Response to Determine Hearing Status: Signal, Noise, and Cross-Checks. , 2018, American journal of audiology.

[6]  Sadegh Jafarzadeh Observing frequency following response in recording of 500 Hz tone burst-evoked auditory brainstem response , 2018 .

[7]  Tsun-Min Lu,et al.  Using click-evoked auditory brainstem response thresholds in infants to estimate the corresponding pure-tone audiometry thresholds in children referred from UNHS. , 2017, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[8]  A. Stuart,et al.  Neonate Auditory Brainstem Responses to CE-Chirp and CE-Chirp Octave Band Stimuli I: Versus Click and Tone Burst Stimuli , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[9]  Alexander T. Ferber,et al.  The Physiological Basis and Clinical Use of the Binaural Interaction Component of the Auditory Brainstem Response , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Sreeraj Konadath,et al.  Auditory Brainstem Responses for Click and CE-chirp Stimuli in Individuals with and without Occupational Noise Exposure , 2016, Noise and Health.

[11]  Jenny L. Goehring,et al.  A Comparison of Alternating Polarity and Forward Masking Artifact-Reduction Methods to Resolve the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential , 2016, Ear and hearing.

[12]  Gabriel Anne Bargen,et al.  Chirp-Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response in Children: A Review. , 2015, American journal of audiology.

[13]  J. Goutman,et al.  Cochlear hair cells: The sound‐sensing machines , 2015, FEBS letters.

[14]  J. Meinzen-Derr,et al.  Air and Bone Conduction Click and Tone-Burst Auditory Brainstem Thresholds Using Kalman Adaptive Processing in Nonsedated Normal-Hearing Infants , 2015, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Arne Leijon,et al.  Analysis of Click-Evoked Auditory Brainstem Responses Using Time Domain Cross-Correlations Between Interleaved Responses , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[16]  Jayashree S. Bhat,et al.  Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Speech Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response , 2013, Audiology research.

[17]  Roberto Albera,et al.  Relationship between pure tone audiometry and tone burst auditory brainstem response at low frequencies gated with Blackman window , 2012, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[18]  M. Don,et al.  A direct approach for the design of chirp stimuli used for the recording of auditory brainstem responses. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  M. Don,et al.  Auditory brainstem responses to a chirp stimulus designed from derived-band latencies in normal-hearing subjects. , 2008, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Kátia de Freitas Alvarenga,et al.  Polarity stimulation effects on brainstem auditory evoked potentials , 2008, Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology.

[21]  Tiffany A Johnson,et al.  Using a Combination of Click- and Tone Burst–Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Response Measurements to Estimate Pure-Tone Thresholds , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[22]  R. M. Hurley,et al.  Development of low-frequency tone burst versus the click auditory brainstem response. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[23]  W. Olsen,et al.  Diagnostic implications of stimulus polarity effects on the auditory brainstem response. , 2002, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[24]  V. Rawool Effects of click polarity on the auditory brainstem responses of older men. , 1998, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[25]  M. Orlando,et al.  The Effects of Reversing the Polarity of Frequency‐Limited Single‐Cycle Stimuli on the Human Auditory Brain Stem Response , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[26]  G. Moushegian,et al.  Adaptation of the auditory brainstem response: effects of click intensity, polarity, and position. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[27]  C. Fowler Effects of stimulus phase on the normal auditory brainstem response. , 1992, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[28]  M. Grim,et al.  Influence of click polarity on the brain-stem auditory evoked response (BAER) revisited. , 1990, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[29]  Y. Mochizuki,et al.  [The auditory brainstem response]. , 1989, No to hattatsu = Brain and development.

[30]  W Jesteadt,et al.  Auditory brainstem responses to tone bursts in normally hearing subjects. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[31]  S. Pijl,et al.  Effects of click polarity on ABR peak latency and morphology in a clinical population. , 1987, The Journal of otolaryngology.

[32]  A. Legatt Electrophysiology of Cranial Nerve Testing: Auditory Nerve. , 2018, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[33]  M. Gorga,et al.  Effects of stimulus phase on the latency of the auditory brainstem response. , 1991, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[34]  F. Debruyne Phase-locking of the auditory brain stem response. , 1984, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.