目标:听性脑干反应(ABR),从内耳延伸到听觉皮层的神经元通路中的电反应,用听觉刺激评估。ABR分析评估波I,III和V的绝对延迟,振幅值,峰间延迟,耳间潜伏期差异,和形态。本研究旨在揭示CE-Chirp®LS刺激的优势及其临床用途,通过比较振幅来增加,延迟,和波I的峰间潜伏期差异,III,通过使用点击和CE-Chirp®LS刺激,在80dBnHL下的V和在60、40、20dBnHL下的V波。
方法:100(54个男孩,46名女孩)听力正常的婴儿被纳入国家新生儿听力筛查计划。通过单击和CE-Chirp®LSABR,波V在20、40和60dBnHL时的绝对延迟和振幅值,和绝对延迟,峰间延迟,和波I的振幅值,III,在刺激和左右耳之间确定80dBnHL下的V。
结果:当在性别之间检查在80、60、40和20dBnHL水平下获得的波V潜伏期和振幅时,根据风险因素,Click和CE-Chirp®LS刺激无显著差异(p>0.05)。波我,III,和V绝对延迟,在80dBnHL和V波绝对延迟下比较了振幅,振幅为60、40和20dBnHL;CE-Chirp®LS测得的振幅明显高于点击刺激(p<0.05)。当两种刺激在80dBnHL水平下比较I-III和III-V峰间潜伏期值时,两种刺激之间没有发现显着差异(p>0.05)。然而,两种刺激的I-V峰间潜伏期值在统计学上显著下降,与耳朵无关(p<0.05)。
结论:建议在临床中增加使用具有更好形态和幅度的CE-Chirp®LS刺激,相信它有助于临床医生的解释。
OBJECTIVE: Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR), the electrical responses in the neuronal pathways extending from the inner ear to the auditory cortex, are evaluated with auditory stimuli. ABR analysis evaluates waves I, III and V\'s absolute-latencies, amplitude values, interpeak-latencies, interaural-latency differences, and morphologies. This study aims to reveal the advantages of CE-Chirp® LS stimulus and its clinical uses to increase by comparing the amplitude, latency, and interpeak-latency differences of waves I, III, and V at 80 dB nHL and wave V at 60, 40, 20 dB nHL by using click and CE-Chirp® LS stimuli.
METHODS: 100 (54 boys, 46 girls) infants with normal hearing were included in the National Newborn Hearing Screening Program. With the click and CE-Chirp® LS ABR, the absolute latency and amplitude values of wave V at 20, 40, and 60 dB nHL, and the absolute-latency, interpeak-latency, and amplitude values of waves I, III, and V at 80 dB nHL are determined between stimuli and right-left ear.
RESULTS: When the wave V latency and amplitudes obtained at 80, 60, 40, and 20 dB nHL levels were examined between genders, and according to the risk factor, no significant difference was found between click and CE-Chirp® LS stimuli (p > 0.05). Waves I, III, and V absolute-latency, amplitudes were compared at 80 dB nHL and wave V absolute-latency, amplitudes at 60, 40, and 20 dB nHL; the amplitudes measured with CE-Chirp® LS were significantly higher than the click stimulus (p < 0.05). When two stimuli were compared for I-III and III-V interpeak-latency values at 80 dB nHL level, no significant difference was found between the two stimuli (p > 0.05). However, the I-V interpeak-latency value was statistically significantly decreased for two stimuli, regardless of the ear (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested to increase the use of CE-Chirp® LS stimulus with better morphology and amplitude in clinics, believing that it facilitates clinicians\' interpretation.