背景:电生理测试通常用于评估传导性听力损失的婴幼儿的听力损失,无论是量化还是表征。然而,存在与当前可用的各种电生理测试相关联的优点和缺点。因此,没有黄金标准测试。这项研究旨在比较窄带(NB)CE-Chirp引起的听觉稳态反应(ASSR)和听觉脑干反应(ABR)在评估传导性听力损失儿童的听力阈值中的价值。希望找出一种有效的电生理检测方法来评价传导性耳聋,为传导性耳聋婴幼儿的临床听力评估提供参考。
方法:和方法:我们选择了27名3-6岁的中耳炎伴积液(OME)儿童(41耳)。1天内,他们依次接受了行为测听和NBCE-Chirp诱导的ASSR和ABR测试。进行Pearson相关性分析以比较500、1000、2000和4000Hz时的行为测听阈值和ASSR和ABR反应阈值。
结果:所有儿童的行为测听阈值与两种电生理测试的反应阈值密切相关,ASSR的相关系数为0.659、0.605、0.723和0.857,ABR为0.587、0.684、0.753和0.802。ASSR与行为测听阈值之间或ABR与行为测听阈值之间差异≤10dB的儿童比例不高,尤其是在低频。在预测实际听力水平方面,ABR结果优于ASSR结果。在0.5、1、2和4kHz时,41只耳朵的行为听力阈值和ASSR阈值之间的平均差异为5.6、5.7、2和5.6dB,分别。行为听阈和ABR阈值之间的平均差异为-5.6,-1.4,-6.8和3.2dB,分别。ASSR的听力损失配置表现出峰值模式,类似于行为测听,而ABR表现出上升模式。进行单耳ASSR测试的时间为5.9分钟,而ABR测试需要17.0分钟。
结论:NBCE-Chirp诱发的ASSR和ABR与传导性听力损失儿童的行为测听密切相关。NBCE-ChirpASSR在测试时间和听力配置评估方面具有优势,而ABR比ASSR具有更好的可靠性。然而,NBCE-Chirp诱导的ASSR和ABR的稳定性差,在评估传导性听力损失儿童的真实听力时,所获得的阈值不能代替行为测听。然而,ASSR和ABR可用作交叉验证的辅助测试。
BACKGROUND: Electrophysiological tests are often used to evaluate hearing loss in infants and young children with conductive hearing loss, no matter to quantify or characterize. However, there are advantages and disadvantages associated with the various electrophysiological tests that are currently available. Therefore, there is no gold standard test. This study aimed to compare the value of narrow-band (NB) CE-Chirp-induced auditory steady-state response (
ASSR) and auditory brainstem response (ABR) for assessing hearing thresholds in children with conductive hearing loss. We hope to identify an effective electrophysiological testing method to evaluate conductive hearing loss and provide a reference for clinical hearing assessment of infants with conductive hearing loss.
METHODS: and Methods: We selected 27 children (41 ears) aged 3-6 years with otitis media with effusion (OME). Within 1 day, they underwent behavioral audiometry and NB CE-Chirp-induced ASSR and ABR tests in sequence. Pearson\'s correlation analysis was performed to compare behavioral audiometry thresholds and ASSR and ABR response thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
RESULTS: The behavioral audiometry thresholds of all children were strongly correlated with the response thresholds of the two electrophysiological tests, with correlation coefficients of 0.659, 0.605, 0.723, and 0.857 for ASSR, and 0.587, 0.684, 0.753, and 0.802 for ABR. The proportion of children with a difference of ≤10 dB between ASSR and behavioral audiometry thresholds or between ABR and behavioral audiometry thresholds was not high, especially in the low frequencies. ABR results were superior to
ASSR results in terms of predicting actual hearing levels. At 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz, the average differences between the behavioral hearing thresholds and ASSR thresholds in the 41 ears were 5.6, 5.7, 2, and 5.6 dB, respectively. The average differences between behavioral hearing thresholds and ABR thresholds was -5.6, -1.4, -6.8, and 3.2 dB, respectively. The hearing loss configuration of the ASSR exhibited a peaked pattern, similar to behavioral audiometry, whereas the ABR exhibited an ascending pattern. The time to perform the single-ear
ASSR test was 5.9 min, whereas the ABR test took 17.0 min.
CONCLUSIONS: ASSR and ABR induced by the NB CE-Chirp correlated well with behavioral audiometry in children with conductive hearing loss. The NB CE-Chirp ASSR has advantages in terms of testing time and hearing configuration evaluation, whereas ABR has better reliability than
ASSR. However, the stability of ASSR and ABR induced by the NB CE-Chirp is poor, and the thresholds obtained cannot replace behavioral audiometry in evaluating the true hearing of children with conductive hearing loss. However,
ASSR and ABR can be used as auxiliary tests for cross-validation.