Two studies are reported in order to compare
auditory brainstem response(ABR) with auditory steady-state responses (ASSR).
The first study is comparison of ASSR with ABR result.
ABR has an advantage over the ASSRs as the
technology is more widely available and many of the stimulus and pathologic
variables have been defined. However, ASSRs are present when ABRs are not. In order to obtain to the results,
Behavioral Threshold Tests, ABR Threshold Tests and ASSR Threshold Tests Were
The study results showed that there is correlation between ABR
threshold (in nHL) with each audiometric threshold (in dB HL) and between
ASSR thresholds and audiometric thresholds (both in dB HL). Also, click
ABR(c-ABR) and ASSR results significantly correlated. The conflict between
behavioral and evoked potential threshold was generally smaller for ASSR than
for ABR. However, there is high correlation between c-ABR and pure tone at 1
and 2 kHz which slightly exceeded those for the ASSR.
In conclusion both c-ABR and ASSR threshold estimates can be used
to predict pure tone threshold for infants and children. Additionally, ABR and ASSR differences were small. However, the The
correlations between the c-ABR threshold and the ASSR thresholds were
statistically significant. Moreover, ASSR threshold was defined objectively
while the ABR threshold was defined subjectively.
The second study is direct comparison of ASSR and tone burst evoked
ABR (tb-ABR). ASSR tests were obtained using 0.5 kHz- and 4 kHz. Visual
Detection and Automatic Detection were used to detect the response. ASSR and
tb-ABR could be used to estimate hearing threshold. However, the stimulus type
and detection method both could affect the threshold determination.
The study results showed that the 0.5 kHz thresholds were higher
compared to those for 4kHz. Furthermore, there is no differences between to
ASSR and tb-ABR in determining the threshold. Additionally, using automatic
detection algorithm for ASSR ensured that the electrophysiologic responses were
In conclusion lower threshold estimates when using visual detection of 0.5 kHz tb-ABR
compared to 0.5 kHz ASSR at 74 Hz which will show the highest threshold estimates. Also, Visual detection of tb-ABR at 4 kHz showed
the lowest threshold estimate. However, there is no significant difference from
the ASSR estimate threshold at 95 Hz.
Strengths of the article in general, compare ABR, ASSR and the pure
tone with different stimulus types with different techniques. Regarding the
first study, both ASSR and ABR data were used. While regarding the second
study, more than one frequency was used at more than one detection method.
Also, all participants have normal hearing level and normal middle ear
weaknesses of the article in general,
the author use a little bit hard
language. The coherence and cohesion for the information was not good.
Regarding the first study, the sample distribution was not equal as most of the
sample size are individual with sensory neural hearing loss while the rest of
the sample are conductive hearing loss, mixed hearing loss or normal hearing
individuals. Additionally, the audiometric status of the participant will bias
the results. Moreover, the current analysis focus on the infant and children
with hearing loss less than profound hearing loss. Regarding the second study,
only one ear was tested in both tb-ABR and ASSR. Thresholds are affected
because most of the participants slept
during ASSR testing. Furthermore, comparing threshold estimates
for tb-ABR and ASSR were difficult because stimulus differences being used.
The benefits from reading this article are, ASSR had advantage in determine the threshold for the
individual with sever to profound hearing loss as it will could not be
determined in ABR due to the instrument limit, clicks evoke a more synchronous
neural response. c-ABR and ASSR could be used together in order to determine
the patient’s threshold. ABR recording will be depend on the examiner his/ her
self. While ASSR will be objectively.