Auditory brainstem and middle latency evoked response sensitivity near threshold

Frank Musiek, N. A. Geurkink

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Auditory brainstem response (ABR) and middle latency evoked response (MLER) testing have been used successfully for assessing hearing sensitivity electrophysiologically. Though both procedures have their proponents, ABR seems to be the more popular of the two. However, this study shows that overall, MLER waves occur with greater frequency at low sensation levels than ABR waves. Specifically, MLER wave Pa was the most sensitive wave, followed by ABR wave V, MLER wave, Pb, ABR wave III, MLER wave Pc, and ABR wave I. Latencies were more consistent and predictable for ABR than MLER. However, as expected, amplitudes for MLER waves were greater than those for ABR. Given these results, those involved in measuring hearing sensitivity electrophysiologically are encouraged to consider the potential of the MLER measure and not limit their scope of assessment to ABR.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)236-240
Number of pages5
JournalAnnals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology
Volume90
Issue number3 I
StatePublished - 1981
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Brain Stem Auditory Evoked Potentials
Brain Stem
Reaction Time
Hearing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Auditory brainstem and middle latency evoked response sensitivity near threshold. / Musiek, Frank; Geurkink, N. A.

In: Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, Vol. 90, No. 3 I, 1981, p. 236-240.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c1429598e66340b0ae76d04b882089e5,
title = "Auditory brainstem and middle latency evoked response sensitivity near threshold",
abstract = "Auditory brainstem response (ABR) and middle latency evoked response (MLER) testing have been used successfully for assessing hearing sensitivity electrophysiologically. Though both procedures have their proponents, ABR seems to be the more popular of the two. However, this study shows that overall, MLER waves occur with greater frequency at low sensation levels than ABR waves. Specifically, MLER wave Pa was the most sensitive wave, followed by ABR wave V, MLER wave, Pb, ABR wave III, MLER wave Pc, and ABR wave I. Latencies were more consistent and predictable for ABR than MLER. However, as expected, amplitudes for MLER waves were greater than those for ABR. Given these results, those involved in measuring hearing sensitivity electrophysiologically are encouraged to consider the potential of the MLER measure and not limit their scope of assessment to ABR.",
author = "Frank Musiek and Geurkink, {N. A.}",
year = "1981",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "90",
pages = "236--240",
journal = "Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology",
issn = "0003-4894",
publisher = "Annals Publishing Company",
number = "3 I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Auditory brainstem and middle latency evoked response sensitivity near threshold

AU - Musiek, Frank

AU - Geurkink, N. A.

PY - 1981

Y1 - 1981

N2 - Auditory brainstem response (ABR) and middle latency evoked response (MLER) testing have been used successfully for assessing hearing sensitivity electrophysiologically. Though both procedures have their proponents, ABR seems to be the more popular of the two. However, this study shows that overall, MLER waves occur with greater frequency at low sensation levels than ABR waves. Specifically, MLER wave Pa was the most sensitive wave, followed by ABR wave V, MLER wave, Pb, ABR wave III, MLER wave Pc, and ABR wave I. Latencies were more consistent and predictable for ABR than MLER. However, as expected, amplitudes for MLER waves were greater than those for ABR. Given these results, those involved in measuring hearing sensitivity electrophysiologically are encouraged to consider the potential of the MLER measure and not limit their scope of assessment to ABR.

AB - Auditory brainstem response (ABR) and middle latency evoked response (MLER) testing have been used successfully for assessing hearing sensitivity electrophysiologically. Though both procedures have their proponents, ABR seems to be the more popular of the two. However, this study shows that overall, MLER waves occur with greater frequency at low sensation levels than ABR waves. Specifically, MLER wave Pa was the most sensitive wave, followed by ABR wave V, MLER wave, Pb, ABR wave III, MLER wave Pc, and ABR wave I. Latencies were more consistent and predictable for ABR than MLER. However, as expected, amplitudes for MLER waves were greater than those for ABR. Given these results, those involved in measuring hearing sensitivity electrophysiologically are encouraged to consider the potential of the MLER measure and not limit their scope of assessment to ABR.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0019451598&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0019451598&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7271128

AN - SCOPUS:0019451598

VL - 90

SP - 236

EP - 240

JO - Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology

JF - Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology

SN - 0003-4894

IS - 3 I

ER -