In this review, two studies are used to compare the
threshold estimates from auditory steady-state response (ASSR) tests to click
or toneburst-evoked auditory brainstem responses (ABRs), to determine if ASSRs
can be used to estimate pure-tone threshold in infants or children at risk for
hearing loss and normal-hearing adults.
The first study, which was a retrospective study, showed
that pure-tone threshold could be predicted by both the click-evoked ABR
(c-ABR) and the ASSR threshold estimates, for infants and children with hearing
thresholds from normal to severe-to-profound range. The correlations of c-ABR
with pure-tone thresholds were moderately robust. As was expected, the
differences between the ABR and ASSR correlation were small. The correlations
between the c-ABR threshold and the ASSR thresholds were also statistically
significant. The high correlation of c-ABR with the pure- tone audiogram also
lies in the nature of pure-tone test results.
The second study, which was a prospective study of
normal-hearing adults, provided evidence that the toneburst-evoked ABR (tb-ABR)
and the modulated tone-evoked ASSR thresholds were similar but that the
stimulus used (tone burst versus AM + FM tone) and detection method (algorithm
versus visual detection) affected the threshold determination.
The title of the article was appropriate and clear, as well
as the the abstract; it was specific, representative of the article, and in the
The purpose of the article was made clear in the
Both studies were adequately described, in terms of methods,
results, and discussion.
In the first study, cases
were excluded if the interval between the ABR, ASSR, and behavioral threshold
tests was greater than 24 months.
In the first study,
participants had different type of hearing loss (sensorineural, conduction,
mixed, and normal hearing) with different degrees of hearing loss (near-normal,
mild hearing loss, moderate hearing loss, or severe-to-profound hearing losses)
In the second study, The ASSR and tb-ABR tests were
carried out in a darkened, custom-built, sound-treated room.
Only titles of the studies
were stated. The author,
name of journal, date of publication, etc. were not included.
In the first study, for
ABR, it was stated that there is a possibility that some observer bias may have
crept into the response judgments.
In the first study, MRLs
were determined in a clinical, not a laboratory, setting. which resulted in
strictly short time to perform multiple measures of threshold at any one
frequency or to evaluate reliability.
In the first study, behavioral
threshold measures and evoked potential threshold estimates were separated in
time by weeks or months, so the likelihood of progressive hearing loss existed
for some infants’ data.
In the second study, only
one ear was tested for each participant.