AUDITORY BRAINSTEM RESPONSES: STIMULUS VARIATIONS

Autores

  • Ana Claudia Bianco Gução Speech-Language Therapist. Master in Communication Disorders. Faculty of Sciences, University Estadual Paulista - FFC/UNESP Marilia - SP
  • Ana Carla Leite Romero Speech-Language Therapist. Master in Communication Disorders. Faculty of Sciences, University Estadual Paulista - FFC/UNESP Marilia - SP/Brazil.
  • Franciny Luque Lemes Speech-Language and Hearing Therapist. 3 Speech-Language Therapist. Faculty of Sciences, University Estadual Paulista - FFC/UNESP Marilia - SP/Brazil.
  • Simone Fiuza Regaçone Speech-Language Therapist. Faculty of Sciences, University Estadual Paulista - FFC/UNESP Marilia - SP/Brazil.
  • Vitor Engracia Valenti Physiotherapist. Assistant Professor, Department of Speech-Language Therapy, Faculty of Sciences, University Estadual Paulista - FFC - UNESP - Marilia (SP), Brazil.
  • Ana Cláudia Figueiredo Frizzo Speech-Language Therapist. Assistant Professor, Department of Speech-Language Therapy, Faculty of Sciences, University Estadual Paulista - FFC - UNESP - Marilia (SP), Brazil.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.106001

Palavras-chave:

Auditory evoked potentials, hearing, normal values, brain stem.

Resumo

Introduction: Auditory brainstem response is a response to external stimulation that represents the neural electrophysiological activity of the auditory system at the brainstem level. Variations due to the change in the presentation of stimuli help in the diagnosis of clinical conditions that affect the auditory nervous system. Objective: To characterize and compare the different polarity variations stimuli and presentation rates in adults with normal hearing. Methods: We investigated 20 students from a Center for Diagnosis and Rehabilitation, with no hearing impairment, all female aged 15-30 years old, who were screened for brainstem auditory evoked potential, which presented stimuli in different polarities ranges, including condensation and rarefaction in different presentation rates of 21.7, 27.7 and 47.7 stimuli per second. Results: We observed lower values of latencies of wave I in the three rates of stimulus presentation and wave V at the rate of 21.7/sec. rarefact when used, and also on the right ear and the same polarity , the gap interpeak I - III also had lower values for rates of introduction, as in the IR range the rate of 21.7/s. In overall comparison of groups in different polarities of stimulation, there was a significant difference only in rarefact. Conclusion: The understanding of the behavior of the electrophysiological response to variations of the stimulus is important and may serve as a reference for normal use of these measures in clinical practice.

Referências

Sleifer P, Costa SS, Cóser PL, Goldani MZ, Dornelles C, Weiss K. Auditory brainstem response in premature and full-term children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007;71: 1449-56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2007.05.029.

Sousa LCA, Piza MRT, Alvarenga KF, Cóser PL. Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response (BAEP). Electrophysiology of Hearing and otoacoustic emissions: principles and clinical applications. São Paulo: Tecmedd; 2008; p. 49-87.

Sousa LCA, LS Rodrigues, Piza MRT, Ferreira DR, Ruiz DB. Occasional finding of neurological research for childhood hearing loss using the ABR. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2007; 73(3): 424-28. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-72992007000300020.

Pinto FR, Woods CG. Comparison between auditory thresholds and electrophysiological tone bursts. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2007;73(4):513-22. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-72992007000400010.

Esteves MCBN, Del’Aringa AHB, Arruda GV, Aringa ARD, Nardi JC. Brainstem evoked response audiometry in normal hearing subjects. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;75(3):420-5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942009000300018.

Moller A. Neural generators for auditory brainstem evoked Potentials. In: Kard RF, Don M, Eggermont JJ. Auditory Evoked Potentials. Basic principles and clinical application. Baltimore Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007; p.336-354.

Antoneli MZ, Zanchetta S, Zorzetto NL, Ribeiro LA, Richieri-Costa A. Holoprosencephaly: clinical evaluation on audiological and brainstem electrophysiological profiles. Am J Med Genetics. 2006; 140A(19):2142–2145. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a

Matas CG, Leite A, Gonçalves IC, IF Neves. Brainstem Evoked Potentials with Conductive and Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Arq Inter Otorrinolaringol. 2005;9(4).

Soares IA, PL Menezes, Carnauba ATL, Pereira LD. Standardization of brainstem auditory evoked potential using a new device. Pro-Fono Rev Atual Cient. 2010; 2(4):421-6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-56872010000400010.

Fowler CG, Bauch CD, Olsen WO. Diagnostic implications of stimulus polarity effects on the 13(2):72-82.

Lima JP, Alvarenga KF, Foelkel TP, Monteiro CZ, Agostinho RS. Polarity stimulation effects on brainstem auditory evoked potentials. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2008;74(5):725-730.

Hall JW. New Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2006.

Hood LJ. Clinical applications of the auditory brainstem response. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group;1998; p.12-28.

Burkard RF, Sims D. The Human Auditory Brainstem Response to high click rates: Aging effects. Am J Audiol. 2001;10(2):53-61.

Vieira S. Introdução à bioestatística. Elsevier Brasil; 2011.

Lloyd LL, Kaplan H. Audiometric interpretation: a manual the basic audiometry. Baltimore: University Park Press; 1978; p.16-7.

Jerger J. Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol. 1970;92 (4):311-24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1970.04310040005002

Rawool VW. Effects of click polarity on the auditory brainstem responses of older men. Audiology. 1998;37(2):100-8.

Ferraro JA, Durrant JD. Auditory Evoked Potentials: general vision and principles. In: Katz J. Treaty of Clinical Audiology. 4th. Manole; 1999; p.315-336.

Starr A. The neurology of auditory neuropathy. In: Sininger IA. Starr Auditory neuropathy, a new perspective on hearing disorders. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 2001; p.37-49.

Fávero ML, Silva FLC, Tabith Junior A, Nicastro FS, Gudmond MC, Spinelli M. Changes in click characteristics during ABR recording. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2007;73(1):7-11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-72992007000100002.

Stürzebecher E, Cebulla M, Neumann K. Click-evoked BAEP at high stimulus repetition rate for neonatal hearing screening. Int J Audiol. 2003;42(2):59-70.

Tanaka H, Komatsuzaki A, Hentona H. Usefulness of auditory brainstem responses at high stimulus rates in the diagnosis of acoustic neuroma. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 1996; 58(4): 224-8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000276841.

Downloads

Publicado

2015-10-25

Edição

v. 25 n. 3 (2015)

Seção

Pesquisa Original

Licença

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis