Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30124503›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Speech Auditory Brainstem Responses: Effects of Background, Stimulus Duration, Consonant-Vowel, and Number of Epochs.

Ghada BinKhamis, Agnès Léger, Steven L Bell, Garreth Prendergast, Martin O'Driscoll, Karolina Kluk

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ghada BinKhamisManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, Division of Human Communication, Development & Hearing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Agnès LégerManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, Division of Human Communication, Development & Hearing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Steven L BellSignal Processing and Control Group, Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Garreth PrendergastManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, Division of Human Communication, Development & Hearing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Martin O'DriscollManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, Division of Human Communication, Development & Hearing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Karolina KlukManchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, Division of Human Communication, Development & Hearing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBKing Fahd Medical City · SAUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802190Medical Research Council G1001517
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aims of this study were to systematically explore the effects of stimulus duration, background (quiet versus noise), and three consonant-vowels on speech-auditory brainstem responses (ABRs). Additionally, the minimum number of epochs required to record speech-ABRs with clearly identifiable waveform components was assessed. The purpose was to evaluate whether shorter duration stimuli could be reliably used to record speech-ABRs both in quiet and in background noise to the three consonant-vowels, as opposed to longer duration stimuli that are commonly used in the literature. Shorter duration stimuli and a smaller number of epochs would require shorter test sessions and thus encourage the transition of the speech-ABR from research to clinical practice.

designSpeech-ABRs in response to 40 msec [da], 50 msec [ba] [da] [ga], and 170 msec [ba] [da] [ga] stimuli were collected from 12 normal-hearing adults with confirmed normal click-ABRs. Monaural (right-ear) speech-ABRs were recorded to all stimuli in quiet and to 40 msec [da], 50 msec [ba] [da] [ga], and 170 msec [da] in a background of two-talker babble at +10 dB signal to noise ratio using a 2-channel electrode montage (Cz-Active, A1 and A2-reference, Fz-ground). Twelve thousand epochs (6000 per polarity) were collected for each stimulus and background from all participants. Latencies and amplitudes of speech-ABR peaks (V, A, D, E, F, O) were compared across backgrounds (quiet and noise) for all stimulus durations, across stimulus durations (50 and 170 msec) and across consonant-vowels ([ba], [da], and [ga]). Additionally, degree of phase locking to the stimulus fundamental frequency (in quiet versus noise) was evaluated for the frequency following response in speech-ABRs to the 170 msec [da]. Finally, the number of epochs required for a robust response was evaluated using Fsp statistic and bootstrap analysis at different epoch iterations.

resultsBackground effect: the addition of background noise resulted in speech-ABRs with longer peak latencies and smaller peak amplitudes compared with speech-ABRs in quiet, irrespective of stimulus duration. However, there was no effect of background noise on the degree of phase locking of the frequency following response to the stimulus fundamental frequency in speech-ABRs to the 170 msec [da]. Duration effect: speech-ABR peak latencies and amplitudes did not differ in response to the 50 and 170 msec stimuli. Consonant-vowel effect: different consonant-vowels did not have an effect on speech-ABR peak latencies regardless of stimulus duration. Number of epochs: a larger number of epochs was required to record speech-ABRs in noise compared with in quiet, and a smaller number of epochs was required to record speech-ABRs to the 40 msec [da] compared with the 170 msec [da].

conclusionsThis is the first study that systematically investigated the clinical feasibility of speech-ABRs in terms of stimulus duration, background noise, and number of epochs. Speech-ABRs can be reliably recorded to the 40 msec [da] without compromising response quality even when presented in background noise. Because fewer epochs were needed for the 40 msec [da], this would be the optimal stimulus for clinical use. Finally, given that there was no effect of consonant-vowel on speech-ABR peak latencies, there is no evidence that speech-ABRs are suitable for assessing auditory discrimination of the stimuli used.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemNoiseSpeechAcoustic StimulationAdultFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30124503
PMCPMC6493675
OpenAlexW2888223759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.