Abstract
Background: The auditory brainstem response (ABR) is used to estimate behavioral hearing thresholds in infants and difficult-to-test populations. Differences between the toneburst ABR and behavioral thresholds exist making the correspondence between the two measures less than perfect. Some authors have suggested that corrections be applied to ABR thresholds to account for these differences. However, because there is no agreed upon universal standard, confusion regarding the use of corrections exists. Purpose: The primary purpose of this article is to review the reasoning behind and use of corrections when the toneburst ABR is employed to estimate behavioral hearing thresholds. We also discuss other considerations that all audiologists should be aware of when obtaining and reporting ABR test results. Results: A review of the purpose and use of corrections reveals no consensus as to whether they should be applied or which should be used. Additionally, when ABR results are adjusted, there is no agreement as to whether additional corrections for hearing loss or the age of the client are necessary. This lack of consensus can be confusing for all individuals working with hearing-impaired children and their families. Conclusions: Toneburst ABR thresholds do not perfectly align with behavioral hearing thresholds. Universal protocols for the use of corrections are needed. Additionally, evidence-based procedures must be employed to obtain valid ABRs that will accurately estimate hearing thresholds.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 950-960 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Academy of Audiology |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Nov 1 2017 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- ABR
- nHL to eHL corrections
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Speech and Hearing
Cite this
Unraveling the mystery of auditory brainstem response corrections : The need for universal standards. / Norrix, Linda W; Velenovsky, David S.
In: Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, Vol. 28, No. 10, 01.11.2017, p. 950-960.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Unraveling the mystery of auditory brainstem response corrections
T2 - The need for universal standards
AU - Norrix, Linda W
AU - Velenovsky, David S
PY - 2017/11/1
Y1 - 2017/11/1
N2 - Background: The auditory brainstem response (ABR) is used to estimate behavioral hearing thresholds in infants and difficult-to-test populations. Differences between the toneburst ABR and behavioral thresholds exist making the correspondence between the two measures less than perfect. Some authors have suggested that corrections be applied to ABR thresholds to account for these differences. However, because there is no agreed upon universal standard, confusion regarding the use of corrections exists. Purpose: The primary purpose of this article is to review the reasoning behind and use of corrections when the toneburst ABR is employed to estimate behavioral hearing thresholds. We also discuss other considerations that all audiologists should be aware of when obtaining and reporting ABR test results. Results: A review of the purpose and use of corrections reveals no consensus as to whether they should be applied or which should be used. Additionally, when ABR results are adjusted, there is no agreement as to whether additional corrections for hearing loss or the age of the client are necessary. This lack of consensus can be confusing for all individuals working with hearing-impaired children and their families. Conclusions: Toneburst ABR thresholds do not perfectly align with behavioral hearing thresholds. Universal protocols for the use of corrections are needed. Additionally, evidence-based procedures must be employed to obtain valid ABRs that will accurately estimate hearing thresholds.
AB - Background: The auditory brainstem response (ABR) is used to estimate behavioral hearing thresholds in infants and difficult-to-test populations. Differences between the toneburst ABR and behavioral thresholds exist making the correspondence between the two measures less than perfect. Some authors have suggested that corrections be applied to ABR thresholds to account for these differences. However, because there is no agreed upon universal standard, confusion regarding the use of corrections exists. Purpose: The primary purpose of this article is to review the reasoning behind and use of corrections when the toneburst ABR is employed to estimate behavioral hearing thresholds. We also discuss other considerations that all audiologists should be aware of when obtaining and reporting ABR test results. Results: A review of the purpose and use of corrections reveals no consensus as to whether they should be applied or which should be used. Additionally, when ABR results are adjusted, there is no agreement as to whether additional corrections for hearing loss or the age of the client are necessary. This lack of consensus can be confusing for all individuals working with hearing-impaired children and their families. Conclusions: Toneburst ABR thresholds do not perfectly align with behavioral hearing thresholds. Universal protocols for the use of corrections are needed. Additionally, evidence-based procedures must be employed to obtain valid ABRs that will accurately estimate hearing thresholds.
KW - ABR
KW - nHL to eHL corrections
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034082259&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85034082259&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3766/jaaa.16112
DO - 10.3766/jaaa.16112
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29130443
AN - SCOPUS:85034082259
VL - 28
SP - 950
EP - 960
JO - Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
JF - Journal of the American Academy of Audiology
SN - 1050-0545
IS - 10
ER -