Cochlear Microphonic and Summating Potential Responses from Click-Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses in High-Risk and Normal Infants

Abstract

Background:

Examination of cochlear and neural potentials is necessary to assess sensory and neural status in infants, especially those cared for in neonatal intensive care units (NICU) who have high rates of hyperbilirubinemia and thus are at risk for auditory neuropathy (AN).

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to determine whether recording parameters commonly used in click-evoked auditory brain stem response (ABR) are useful for recording cochlear microphonic (CM) and Wave I in infants at risk for AN. Specifically, we analyzed CM, summating potential (SP), and Waves I, III, and V. The overall aim was to compare latencies and amplitudes of evoked responses in infants cared for in NICUs with infants in a well-baby nursery (WBN), both of which passed newborn hearing screening.

Research Design:

This is a prospective study in which infants who passed ABR newborn hearing screening were grouped based on their birth history (WBN and NICU). All infants had normal hearing status when tested with diagnostic ABR at about one month of age, corrected for prematurity.

Study Sample:

Thirty infants (53 ears) from the WBN [mean corrected age at test = 5.0 weeks (wks.)] and thirty-two infants (59 ears) from the NICU (mean corrected age at test = 5.7 wks.) with normal hearing were included in this study. In addition, two infants were included as comparative case studies, one that was diagnosed with AN and another case that was diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL).

Data Collection and Analysis:

Diagnostic ABR, including click and tone-burst air- and bone-conduction stimuli were recorded. Peak Waves I, III, and V; SP; and CM latency and amplitude (peak to trough) were measured to determine if there were differences in ABR and electrocochleography (ECochG) variables between WBN and NICU infants.

Results:

No significant group differences were found between WBN and NICU groups for ABR waveforms, CM, or SP, including amplitude and latency values. The majority (75%) of the NICU group had hyperbilirubinemia, but overall, they did not show evidence of effects in their ECochG or ABR responses when tested at about one-month corrected age. These data may serve as a normative sample for NICU and well infant ECochG and ABR latencies at one-month corrected age. Two infant case studies, one diagnosed with AN and another with SNHL demonstrated the complexity of using ECochG and otoacoustic emissions to assess the risk of AN in individual cases.

Conclusions:

CM and SPs can be readily measured using standard click stimuli in both well and NICU infants. Normative ranges for latency and amplitude are useful for interpreting ECochG and ABR components. Inclusion of ECochG and ABR tests in a test battery that also includes otoacoustic emission and acoustic reflex tests may provide a more refined assessment of the risks of AN and SNHL in infants.

Key Words

auditory-evoked potentials - diagnostic techniques - otoacoustic emissions - pediatric audiology

This research was supported by the National Institute of Deafness and other Communication Disorders of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01 DC010202 and an ARRA supplement (DC010202-01S1). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Health. The content of this article does not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or of the United States Government.

¹ Data collected while employed at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

• REFERENCES

• Abdala C. 1996; Distortion product otoacoustic emission (2f1-f2) amplitude as a function of f2/f1 frequency ratio and primary tone level separation in human adults and neonates. J Acoust Soc Am 100: 3726-3740
• Arslan E, Prosser S, Conti G, Michelini S. 1983; Electrocochleography and brainstem potentials in the diagnosis of the deaf child. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 5: 251-259
• Berg AL, Spitzer JB, Towers HM, Bartosiewicz C, Diamond BE. 2005; Newborn hearing screening in the NICU: profile of failed auditory brainstem response/passed otoacoustic emission. Pediatrics 116: 933-938
• Berlin CI, Hood LJ, Morlet T, Wilensky D, St John P, Montgomery E, Thibodaux M. 2005; Absent or elevated middle ear muscle reflexes in the presence of normal otoacoustic emissions: a universal finding in 136 cases of auditory neuropathy/dys-synchrony. J Am Acad Audiol 16: 546-553
• Blankenship CM, Hunter LL, Keefe DH, Feeney MP, Brown DK, McCune A, Fitzpatrick DF, Lin L. 2017 Optimizing clinical interpretation of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in infants. Ear and Hearing, accepted
• Elsayed AM, Hunter LL, Keefe DH, Feeney MP, Brown DK, Meinzen-Derr JK, Schaid LG. 2015; Air and bone conduction click and tone-burst auditory brainstem thresholds using kalman adaptive processing in nonsedated normal-hearing infants. Ear Hear 36: 471-481
• Ferraro JA. 2000 Clinical electrocochleography: overview of theories, techniques and applications. Audiol Online. https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/clinical-electrocochleography-overview-theories-techniques-1121 . Accessed January 19, 2018
• Gaskill SA, Brown AM. 1990; The behavior of the acoustic distortion product, 2f1-f2, from the human ear and its relation to auditory sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am 88: 821-839
• Ge X, Shea Jr JJ. 2002; Transtympanic electrocochleography: a 10-year experience. Otol Neurotol 23: 799-805
• Hall JW. 2007. New Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses.
• Hayes D, Sininger YS. 2008. Guidelines for Identification and Management of Infants and Children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder. Aurora, CO: https://www.childrenscolorado.org/globalassets/departments/ear-nose-throat/ansd-monograph.pdf . Accessed January 19, 2018
• Hunter LL, Blankenship C, Keefe DH, Feeney MP, Brown DK, McCune A, Fitzpatrick D, Lin L. 2017 a Longitudinal development of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in infants with normal hearing. Ear Hear in press
• Hunter LL, Keefe DH, Feeney MP, Fitzpatrick DF. 2017; b Pressurized wideband acoustic stapedial reflex thresholds: normal development and relationships to auditory function in infants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 18: 49-63
• Hunter LL, Keefe DH, Feeney MP, Fitzpatrick DF, Lin L. 2015; Longitudinal development of wideband reflectance tympanometry in normal and at-risk infants. Hear Res 340: 3-14
• Jiang ZD, Chen C, Wilkinson AR. 2012; Brainstem auditory response findings in term neonates in intensive care unit. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 25: 2746-2749
• Keefe DH, Feeney MP, Hunter LL, Fitzpatrick DF. 2016 Aural acoustic stapedius-muscle reflex threshold procedures to test human infants and adults. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol
• Keefe DH, Hunter LL, Feeney MP, Fitzpatrick DF. 2015; Procedures for ambient-pressure and tympanometric tests of aural acoustic reflectance and admittance in human infants and adults. J Acoust Soc Am 138: 3625-3653
• Kennedy AE, Kaf WA, Ferraro JA, Delgado RE, Lichtenhan JT. 2017; Human summating potential using continuous loop averaging deconvolution: response amplitudes vary with tone burst repetition rate and duration. Front Neurosci 11: 429
• Liberman MC, Epstein MJ, Cleveland SS, Wang H, Maison SF. 2016; Toward a differential diagnosis of hidden hearing loss in humans. PLoS One 11: e0162726
• Moser T, Starr A. 2016; Auditory neuropathy–neural and synaptic mechanisms. Nat Rev Neurol 12: 135-149
• Petty C, Huffman A. 2014; Auditory neuropathy: a case of near misdiagnosis. Pediat Therapeut 4: 194
• Pourarian S, Khademi B, Pishva N, Jamali A. 2012; Prevalence of hearing loss in newborns admitted to neonatal intensive care unit. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 24: 129-134
• Psarommatis I, Florou V, Fragkos M, Douniadakis E, Kontrogiannis A. 2011; Reversible auditory brainstem responses screening failures in high risk neonates. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 268: 189-196
• Rance G, Beer DE, Cone-Wesson B, Shepherd RK, Dowell RC, King AM, Clark GM. 1999; Clinical findings for a group of infants and young children with auditory neuropathy. Ear Hear 20: 238-252
• Rance G, Starr A. 2015; Pathophysiological mechanisms and functional hearing consequences of auditory neuropathy. Brain 138: 3141-3158
• Santarelli R, Arslan E. 2002; Electrocochleography in auditory neuropathy. Hear Res 170: 32-47
• Santarelli R, Starr A, Michalewski HJ, Arslan E. 2008; Neural and receptor cochlear potentials obtained by transtympanic electrocochleography in auditory neuropathy. Clin Neurophysiol 119: 1028-1041
• Sass K. 1998; Sensitivity and specificity of transtympanic electrocochleography in Meniere’s disease. Acta Otolaryngol 118: 150-156
• Schoonhoven R, Lamore PJJ, deLaat JAPM, Grote JJ. 1999; The prognostic value of electrocochleography in severely hearing-impaired infants. Audiology 38: 141-154
• Shi W, Ji F, Lan L, Liang SC, Ding HN, Wang H, Wang QJ. 2012; Characteristics of cochlear microphonics in infants and young children with auditory neuropathy. Acta Otolaryngol 132: 188-196
• Starr A, Picton TW, Sininger Y, Hood LJ, Berlin CI. 1996; Auditory neuropathy. Brain 119 Pt 3 741-753
• Starr A, Sininger Y, Nguyen T, Michalewski HJ, Oba S, Abdala C. 2001; Cochlear receptor (microphonic and summating potentials, otoacoustic emissions) and auditory pathway (auditory brain stem potentials) activity in auditory neuropathy. Ear Hear 22: 91-99
• Stover L, Gorga MP, Neely ST, Montoya D. 1996; Toward optimizing the clinical utility of distortion product otoacoustic emission measurements. J Acoust Soc Am 100: 956-967
• Young S. 2000. Cochlear Microphonic and Distortion Product Otacoustic Emission Sin Infants: A Normative Study Melborne, Australia: The University of Melborne;