Multiple-stimulus auditory steady-state responses (ASSRs) were assessed in 111 ears of 70 infants between –4 and 19 weeks of age at risk for hearing loss. ASSR thresholds obtained in infants with normal hearing (n = 69 ears) were compared with normal adult ASSR thresholds (n = 32 ears), and the linear relation between ASSR thresholds and behavioral thresholds (BHTs) was investigated in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired infants (n = 79 ears). Furthermore, latency estimates of significant responses to stimuli of 50 dB SPL were compared between the normal-hearing infants (n = 171 data points) and adults (n = 124 data points) and developmental changes in latency were evaluated within the infant group. Normal ASSR thresholds were on average 12 dB higher in infants compared with adults. Correlations between ASSR thresholds and BHTs were 0.75, 0.87, 0.87 and 0.79 for 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz, respectively. There was a significant effect of carrier frequency on ASSR latency, with higher carrier frequencies evoking shorter latencies in both infants and adults. Mean latencies in adults were 24.3 ± 1.5, 22.3 ± 1.1, 19.4 ± 1.0 and 18.0 ± 1.1 ms for 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz, respectively. Depending on the data fit of the infant latency estimates, mean latencies were 1.0 ms shorter or 9.5 ms longer in infants compared with adults. In infants, latencies were on average 2.0 ms longer in the youngest infant group (≤0 weeks) relative to the oldest infant group (3–8 weeks). These age-related trends, together with other arguments, point to longer latencies in infants compared with adults. The results of this study are valuable as a clinical reference for interpreting ASSR results obtained in high-risk infants within their first months of life and indicate that developmental changes occur regarding ASSR latency.

1.
Alaerts J, Luts H, Wouters J: Evaluation of middle ear function in young children: clinical guidelines for the use of 226- and 1000-Hz tympanometry. Otol Neurotol 2007;28:727–732.
2.
Aoyagi M, Kiren T, Kim Y, Suzuki Y, Fuse T, Koike Y: Optimal modulation frequency for amplitude-modulation following response in young children during sleep. Hear Res 1993;65:253–261.
3.
Balfour PB, Pillion JP, Gaskin AE: Distortion product otoacoustic emission and auditory brain stem response measures of pediatric sensorineural hearing loss with islands of normal sensitivity. Ear Hear 1998;19:463–472.
4.
Cohen LT, Rickards FW, Clark GM: A comparison of steady-state evoked potentials to modulated tones in awake and sleeping humans. J Acoust Soc Am 1991;90:2467–2479.
5.
Cone-Wesson B, Dowell RC, Tomlin D, Rance G, Ming WJ: The auditory steady-state response: comparisons with the auditory brainstem response. J Am Acad Audiol 2002a;13:173–187.
6.
Cone-Wesson B, Rickards F, Poulis C, Parker J, Tan L, Pollard J: The auditory steady-state response: clinical observations and applications in infants and children. J Am Acad Audiol 2002b;13:270–282.
7.
Eggermont JJ, Brown DK, Ponton CW, Kimberley BP: Comparison of distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) and auditory brain stem response (ABR) traveling wave delay measurements suggests frequency-specific synapse maturation. Ear Hear 1996;17:386–394.
8.
Eggermont JJ, Ponton CW, Coupland SG, Winkelaar R: Maturation of the traveling-wave delay in the human cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 1991;90:288–298.
9.
Galambos R, Makeig S, Talmachoff PJ: A 40-Hz auditory potential recorded from the human scalp. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1981;78:2643–2647.
10.
Goldstein JL, Baer T, Kiang NYS: A theoretical treatment of latency, group delay, and tuning characteristics for auditory-nerve responses to clicks and tones; in Sachs MB (ed): Physiology of the Auditory System; Based on the Proceedings of a Workshop, Baltimore, National Educational Consultants, 1971, pp 133–141.
11.
Hall JW: Handbook of auditory evoked responses, ed 1. Massachusetts, Allyn & Bacon, 1992.
12.
Hall JW: ABR analyses and interpretation; in Hall JW (ed): New Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses. Boston, Pearson, 2007, pp 212–255.
13.
John MS, Brown DK, Muir PJ, Picton TW: Recording auditory steady-state responses in young infants. Ear Hear 2004;25:539–553.
14.
John MS, Dimitrijevic A, Van Roon P, Picton TW: Multiple auditory steady-state responses to AM and FM stimuli. Audiol Neurootol 2001;6:12–27.
15.
John MS, Picton TW: Human auditory steady-state responses to amplitude-modulated tones: phase and latency measurements. Hear Res 2000a;141:57–79.
16.
John MS, Picton TW: MASTER: a Windows program for recording multiple auditory steady-state responses. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2000b;61:125–150.
17.
Johnson TA, Brown CJ: Threshold prediction using the auditory steady-state response and the tone burst auditory brain stem response: a within-subject comparison. Ear Hear 2005;26:559–576.
18.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing: Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 1994 Position Statement. American Academy of Pediatrics Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Pediatrics 1995;95:152–156.
19.
Keefe DH, Levi E: Maturation of the middle and external ears: acoustic power-based responses and reflectance tympanometry. Ear Hear 1996;17:361–373.
20.
Levi EC, Folsom RC, Dobie RA: Amplitude-modulation following response (AMFR): effects of modulation rate, carrier frequency, age, and state. Hear Res 1993;68:42–52.
21.
Levi EC, Folsom RC, Dobie RA: Coherence analysis of envelope-following responses (EFRs) and frequency-following responses (FFRs) in infants and adults. Hear Res 1995;89:21–27.
22.
Lins OG, Picton PE, Picton TW, Champagne SC, Durieux-Smith A: Auditory steady-state responses to tones amplitude-modulated at 80–110 Hz. J Acoust Soc Am 1995;97:3051–3063.
23.
Lins OG, Picton TW, Boucher BL, Durieux-Smith A, Champagne SC, Moran LM, Perez-Abalo MC, Martin V, Savio G: Frequency-specific audiometry using steady-state responses. Ear Hear 1996;17:81–96.
24.
Luts H, Desloovere C, Kumar A, Vandermeersch E, Wouters J: Objective assessment of frequency-specific hearing thresholds in babies. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2004;68:915–926.
25.
Luts H, Desloovere C, Wouters J: Clinical application of dichotic multiple-stimulus auditory steady-state responses in high-risk newborns and young children. Audiol Neurotol 2006;11:24–37.
26.
Parry G, Hacking C, Bamford J, Day J: Minimal response levels for visual reinforcement audiometry in infants. Int J Audiol 2003;42:413–417.
27.
Picton TW, Dimitrijevic A, John MS, Van Roon P: The use of phase in the detection of auditory steady-state responses. Clin Neurophysiol 2001;112:1698–1711.
28.
Picton TW, John MS, Dimitrijevic A, Purcell D: Human auditory steady-state responses. Int J Audiol 2003;42:177–219.
29.
Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ: Electrophysiological measures of human auditory system maturation; in Burkard RF, Don M, and Eggermont JJ (eds): Auditory Evoked Potentials: Basic Principles and Clinical Application. Baltimore, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007, pp 385–402.
30.
Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Coupland SG, Winkelaar R: Frequency-specific maturation of the eighth nerve and brain-stem auditory pathway: evidence from derived auditory brain-stem responses (ABRs). J Acoust Soc Am 1992;91:1576–1586.
31.
Purcell DW, John MS, Picton TW: Concurrent measurement of distortion product otoacoustic emissions and auditory steady state evoked potentials. Hear Res 2003;176:128–141.
32.
Rance G, Briggs RJ: Assessment of hearing in infants with moderate to profound impairment: the Melbourne experience with auditory steady-state evoked potential testing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2002;189:22–28.
33.
Rance G, Rickards F: Prediction of hearing threshold in infants using auditory steady-state evoked potentials. J Am Acad Audiol 2002;13:236–245.
34.
Rance G, Rickards FW, Cohen LT, De Vidi S, Clark GM: The automated prediction of hearing thresholds in sleeping subjects using auditory steady-state evoked potentials. Ear Hear 1995;16:499–507.
35.
Rance G, Roper R, Symons L, Moody LJ, Poulis C, Dourlay M, Kelly T: Hearing threshold estimation in infants using auditory steady-state responses. J Am Acad Audiol 2005;16:291–300.
36.
Rance G, Tomlin D: Maturation of auditory steady-state responses in normal babies. Ear Hear 2006;27:20–29.
37.
Rance G, Tomlin D, Rickards FW: Comparison of auditory steady-state responses and tone-burst auditory brainstem responses in normal babies. Ear Hear 2006;27:751–762.
38.
Regan D: Some characteristics of average steady-state and transient responses evoked by modulated light. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1966;20:238–248.
39.
Rickards FW, Tan LE, Cohen LT, Wilson OJ, Drew JH, Clark GM: Auditory steady-state evoked potential in newborns. Br J Audiol 1994;28:327–337.
40.
Savio G, Cardenas J, Perez AM, Gonzalez A, Valdes J: The low and high frequency auditory steady state responses mature at different rates. Audiol Neurootol 2001;6:279–287.
41.
Savio G, Perez-Abalo MC, Gaya J, Hernandez O, Mijares E: Test accuracy and prognostic validity of multiple auditory steady state responses for targeted hearing screening. Int J Audiol 2006;45:109–120.
42.
Small SA, Stapells DR: Normal ipsilateral/contralateral asymmetries in infant multiple auditory steady-state responses to air- and bone-conduction stimuli. Ear Hear 2008;29:185–198.
43.
Stapells DR: Threshold estimation by the tone-evoked auditory brainstem response: a literature meta-analysis. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 2000;24:74–83.
44.
Stueve MP, O’Rourke C: Estimation of hearing loss in children: comparison of auditory steady-state response, auditory brainstem response, and behavioral test methods. Am J Audiol 2003;12:125–136.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.