Detection efficiency of auditory steady state evoked by modulated noise

AIM This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of Magnitude Squared Coherence (MSC) and Spectral F test (SFT) for the detection of auditory steady state responses (ASSR) obtained by amplitude-modulated noises. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty individuals (12 women) without any history of neurological or audiological diseases, aged from 18 to 59 years (mean ± standard deviation = 26.45 ± 3.9 years), who provided written informed consent, participated in the study. The Audiostim system was used for stimulating and ASSR recording. The tested stimuli were amplitude-modulated Wide-band noise (WBN), Low-band noise (LBN), High-band noise (HBN), Two-band noise (TBN) between 77 and 110 Hz, applied in intensity levels of 55, 45, and 25 dB sound pressure level (SPL). MSC and SFT, two statistical-based detection techniques, were applied with a significance level of 5%. Detection times and rates were compared using the Friedman test and Tukey-Kramer as post hoc analysis. Also based on the stimulation parameters (stimuli types and intensity levels) and detection techniques (MSC or SFT), 16 different pass/fail protocols, for which the true negatives (TN) were calculated. RESULTS The median detection times ranged from 68 to 157s for 55 dB SPL, 68-99s for 45 dB SPL, and 84-118s for 25 dB SPL. No statistical difference was found between MSC and STF considering the median detection times (p > 0.05). The detection rates ranged from 100% to 55.6% in 55 dB SPL, 97.2%-38.9% in 45 dB SPL and 66.7%-8.3% in 25 dB SPL. Also for detection rates, no statistical difference was observed between MSC and STF (p > 0.05). True negatives (TN) above 90% were found for Protocols that employed WBN or HBN, at 55 dB SPL or that used WBN or HBN, at 45 dB SPL. For Protocols employing TBN, at 55 dB SPL or 45 dB SPL TN below 60% were found due to the low detection rates of stimuli that included low-band frequencies. CONCLUSION The stimuli that include high-frequency content showed higher detection rates (>90%) and lower detection times (<3 min). The noise composed by two bands applied separately (TBN) is not feasible for clinical applications since it requires prolonging the exam duration, and also led to a reduced percentage of true negatives. On the other hand, WBN and HBN achieved high detection performance and high TN and should be investigated to implement pass/fail protocol for hearing screening with clinical population. Finally, both WBN and HBN seemed to be indifferent to the employed technique (SFT or MSC), which can be seen as another advantage of ASSR employment.

[1]  A. Dalğıç,et al.  Reliability of Auditory Steady-State Response (ASSR): Comparing Thresholds of Auditory Steady-State Response (ASSR) with Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) in Children with Severe Hearing Loss , 2013, Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery.

[2]  D. Stapells,et al.  The Efficiency of the Single- Versus Multiple-Stimulus Auditory Steady State Responses in Infants , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[3]  Gary Rance,et al.  Hearing threshold estimation in infants using auditory steady-state responses. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  Terence W Picton,et al.  Human Auditory Steady-State Responses During Sweeps of Intensity , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[5]  T W Picton,et al.  Auditory steady-state responses to tones amplitude-modulated at 80-110 Hz. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  J. Chen,et al.  Threshold Estimation in Children Using Auditory Steady-State Responses to Multiple Simultaneous Stimuli , 2006, ORL.

[7]  O. Lins,et al.  Comparison of Statistical Indicators for the Automatic Detection of 80 Hz Auditory Steady State Responses , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[8]  T W Picton,et al.  Multiple auditory steady-state responses (MASTER): stimulus and recording parameters. , 1998, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[9]  D. B. Melges,et al.  Objective Response Detection of Multiple Auditory Steady-State Responses: Rice Detector vs Component Synchrony Measure , 2013 .

[10]  Carlos Julio Tierra-Criollo,et al.  Auditory steady-state responses in school-aged children: a pilot study , 2015, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[11]  Terence W Picton,et al.  Auditory Steady-State Responses to Exponential Modulation Envelopes , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[12]  F. Abdo,et al.  Parameters to monitor multiple auditory steady-state responses: Spectral F test , 2012, 2012 ISSNIP Biosignals and Biorobotics Conference: Biosignals and Robotics for Better and Safer Living (BRC).

[13]  T. Picton,et al.  Human auditory steady-state responses: Respuestas auditivas de estado estable en humanos , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[14]  A.M.F. Miranda de Sa,et al.  Evaluating the Event-Related Synchronization and Desynchronization by means of a Statistical Frequency Test , 2007, 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[15]  R A Dobie,et al.  A comparison of t test, F test, and coherence methods of detecting steady-state auditory-evoked potentials, distortion-product otoacoustic emissions, or other sinusoids. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  D. Regan Human brain electrophysiology: Evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine , 1989 .

[17]  S. Makeig,et al.  A 40-Hz auditory potential recorded from the human scalp. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  Jackson Roush,et al.  Year 2007 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs , 2007, Pediatrics.

[19]  R A Dobie,et al.  Analysis of auditory evoked potentials by magnitude-squared coherence. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[20]  Jennifer L. Smart,et al.  Auditory steady-state responses. , 2012, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[21]  Terence W. Picton,et al.  The use of phase in the detection of auditory steady-state responses , 2001, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[22]  A. Dimitrijevic,et al.  Efficient Stimuli for Evoking Auditory Steady-State Responses , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[23]  J. Eggermont Between sound and perception: reviewing the search for a neural code , 2001, Hearing Research.

[24]  Colette M McKay,et al.  Auditory Steady State Responses in Normal-Hearing and Hearing-Impaired Adults: An Analysis of Between-Session Amplitude and Latency Repeatability, Test Time, and F Ratio Detection Paradigms , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[25]  David R Stapells,et al.  Monotic Versus Dichotic Multiple-Stimulus Auditory Steady State Responses in Young Children , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[26]  Gaetano Paludetti,et al.  Steady State Auditory Evoked Potentials in Normal Hearing Subjects: Evaluation of Threshold and Testing Time , 2012, ORL.

[27]  Terence W. Picton,et al.  Frequency‐Specific Audiometry Using Steady‐State Responses , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[28]  Zurek Pm,et al.  Detectability of transient and sinusoidal otoacoustic emissions. , 1992 .

[29]  Otávio Gomes Lins,et al.  Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Estado Estável com estímulo de ruído branco modulado em amplitude em triagem auditiva neonatal , 2011 .

[30]  Terence W Picton,et al.  Recording Auditory Steady-State Responses in Young Infants , 2004, Ear and Hearing.

[31]  Jan Wouters,et al.  The Influence of the Detection Paradigm in Recording Auditory Steady-State Responses , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[32]  G. Rodrigues,et al.  Potenciais Evocados Auditivos de Estado Estável no diagnóstico audiológico infantil: uma comparação com os Potenciais Evocados Auditivos de Tronco Encefálico , 2010 .

[33]  Reza Hosseinabadi,et al.  Auditory Steady-State Response Thresholds in Adults With Conductive and Mild to Moderate Sensorineural Hearing Loss , 2015, Iranian Red Crescent medical journal.