Objective: This study aims to investigate the correlation between thresholds of preoperative multiple auditory steady-state response (ASSR) and electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR) and the behavioral threshold. Methods: A total of 72 patients were elected to receive a multichannel cochlear implant. According to the residual hearing determined in a preoperative test using high-, moderate-, and low-frequency ASSR, these patients were divided into the following 2 groups: residual hearing and hearing loss. The EABR and behavioral thresholds 1 year after implantation were assayed, and differences between these 2 parameters were compared. Results: Among the high-, moderate-, and low-frequency residual hearing groups, the EABR and behavioral thresholds of patients 1 year after implantation were significantly lower than those in the hearing loss group, and the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Before the operation, ASSR results can be used to predict the efficacy of cochlear implantation in patients, and they serve as one of the reference conditions for choosing the ear for implantation. However, the threshold of ASSR is not equivalent to the actual auditory threshold of patients after implantation, and the deviation between these 2 thresholds is more significant at low frequencies.

Keywords:
Cochlear implantation, Behavioral threshold, Multiple auditory steady-state responses, Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response, Children
1.
Bedoin N, Besombes AM, Escande E, Dumont A, Lalitte P: Boosting syntax training with temporally regular musical primes in children with cochlear implants. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2017, DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2017.03.004.
2.
Dammeyer J, Lehane C, Marschark M: Use of technological aids and interpretation services among children and adults with hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2017; 16: 1–9.
3.
Melo AS, Martins J, Silva J, Quadros J, Paiva A: Cochlear implantation in children with anomalous cochleovestibular anatomy. Auris Nasus Larynx 2017; 44: 509–516.
4.
Ozdek A, Karacay M, Saylam G, Tatar E, Aygener N, Korkmaz MH: Comparison of pure tone audiometry and auditory steady-state responses in subjects with normal hearing and hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 267: 43–49.
5.
Lin YH, Ho HC, Wu HP: Comparison of auditory steady-state responses and auditory brainstem responses in audiometric assessment of adults with sensorineural hearing loss. Auris Nasus Larynx 2009; 36: 140–145.
6.
Wu Y, Wu H, Li Y, Zhang J: Threshold prediction in adults with normal hearing using ASSR, Tb-ABR and c-ABR: a within-subject comparison. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2009; 23: 4–7.
7.
Farhood Z, Nguyen SA, Miller SC, Holcomb MA, Meyer TA, Rizk AHG: Cochlear implantation in inner ear malformations: systematic review of speech perception outcomes and intraoperative findings. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017; 156: 783–793.
8.
Isaiah A, Lee D, Lenes-Voit F, Sweeney M, Kutz W, Isaacson B, Roland P, Lee KH: Clinical outcomes following cochlear implantation in children with inner ear anomalies. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 93: 1–6.
9.
Cinar BC, Batuk MO, Tahir E, Sennaroglu G, Sennaroglu L: Audiologic and radiologic findings in cochlear hypoplasia. Auris Nasus Larynx 2017; 44: 655–663.
10.
Baldwin M, Watkin P: Predicting the degree of hearing loss using click auditory brainstem response in babies referred from newborn hearing screening. Ear Hear 2013; 34: 361–369.
11.
Wang B, Cao KL, Wei CG, Wang Y, Li H: Detection of the electric brain stem auditory response before cochlear implantation and its significance. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2016; 51: 826–831.
12.
Li XP, Wei W, Wu J, Lü J, Situ HR: Comparison between auditory steady-state response and 40 Hz auditory event related potential in the evaluation of hearing thresholds. Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi 2009; 25: 263–266.
13.
Swanepoel D, Schmulian D, Hugo R: Establishing normal hearing with the dichotic multiple-frequency auditory steady-state response compared to an auditory brainstem response protocol. Acta Otolaryngol 2004; 124: 62–68.
14.
Vander WK, Brown CJ, Gienapp BA, Schmidt Clay KM: Comparison of auditory steady-state response and auditory brainstem response thresholds in children. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13: 227–235, 283–284.
15.
Luke R, De Vos A, Wouters J: Source analysis of auditory steady-state responses in acoustic and electric hearing. Neuroimage 2017; 147: 568–576.
16.
Luke R, Wouters J: Kalman Filter Based Estimation of Auditory Steady State Response Parameters. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2017; 25: 196–204.
17.
Lee HS, Kim HN, Jung MH, Choi JY: Prediction of hearing sensitivity with multiple auditory steady-state responses (MASTER) for severe to profound hearing loss. Cochlear Implants Int 2004; 1: 199–200.
18.
Attias J, Buller N, Rubel Y, Raveh E: Multiple auditory steady-state responses in children and adults with normal hearing, sensorineural hearing loss, or auditory neuropathy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2006; 115: 268–276.
19.
Hofmann M, Wouters J: Electrically evoked auditory steady state responses in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2010; 11: 267–282.
20.
Gordon KA, Ebinger KA, Gilden JE, Shapiro WH: Neural response telemetry in 12- to 24-month-old children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2002; 189: 42–48.
21.
Maxwell AP, Mason SM, O’Donoghue GM: Cochlear nerve aplasia: its importance in cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 1999; 20: 335–337.
22.
Aubert LR, Clarke GP: Reliability and predictive value of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response. Br J Audiol 1994; 28: 121–124.
23.
Raghunandhan S, Ravikumar A, Kameswaran M, Mandke K, Ranjith R: Electrophysiological correlates of behavioral comfort levels in cochlear implantees: a prospective study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015; 67: 210–222.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
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.