4.5 Article

Relationship between the auditory brainstem response and auditory nerve thresholds in cats with hearing loss

Journal

HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 156, Issue 1-2, Pages 44-52

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-5955(01)00264-7

Keywords

sensorineural hearing loss; auditory brainstem response; auditory nerve fiber; off-frequency listening

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [2 R01 DC00109] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explored the relationship between the auditory brainstem response (ABR) and auditory serve sensitivity in cats with normal hearing and with noise-induced permanent threshold shifts. A statistically significant linear correlation was found between each cat's ABR thresholds and the most sensitive single neuron thresholds at the same frequency. ABR thresholds were approximately 25 dB higher than the thresholds of the most sensitive neural responses in cats with normal hearing. The two measures produced equivalent thresholds at impaired frequencies in subjects with sensorineural hearing loss. Two factors may have contributed to this convergence of ABR and neural thresholds. First, our results suggest that the elevation of the most sensitive neural responses led to a compressed threshold distribution. Consequently, only a narrow range of sound levels separated stimulus conditions that activated relatively few fibers from those that were sufficient to evoke a robust population response. In addition, the threshold responses of impaired auditory nerve fibers may have been augmented by activity in the more sensitive 'off-frequency' regions that surrounded a discrete cochlear lesion. Across varying degrees of hearing loss, the ABR maintained a systematic relationship to auditory nerve fiber thresholds, and therefore has the potential to be used as a functional assay of cochlear pathology, (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available