Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(06): 339-346
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1727273
Research Article

Comparing Simultaneous Electrocochleography and Auditory Brainstem Response Measurements Using Three Different Extratympanic Electrodes

Shannon M. Lefler
1   Communications Sciences and Disorders Department, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
2   Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri
,
Wafaa A. Kaf
1   Communications Sciences and Disorders Department, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri
,
John A. Ferraro
3   Department of Hearing and Speech, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Various extratympanic recording electrodes have been used to make electrocochleography (ECochG) and auditory brainstem response (ABR) measurements in clinics, translational research, and basic science laboratories. However, differences may exist in ECochG and ABR measurements depending on the different types of extratympanic electrodes that are used.

Purpose The purpose of this research is to compare simultaneously recorded ECochG and ABR responses using three different extratympanic electrodes. This research helps clinicians and researchers to understand how electrode types and recording sites influence EcochG and ABR results. In addition, our findings could provide more normative data to the ECochG and ABR literature as well as give perspective on a preferred electrode approach when performing simultaneous ECochG and ABR testing.

Research Design Ours was a repeated-measures study with measurements being made from individual participants on two separate sessions.

Study Sample Twenty young adult females with normal hearing.

Procedure A three-channel recording system was used to simultaneously record ECochG and ABR measurements in response to alternating polarity click stimuli. In each session, measurements were simultaneously recorded with a TipTrode electrode and one of the tympanic membrane (TM) electrodes.

Data Collection and Analysis Suprathreshold summating potential (SP) and action potential (AP) of the ECochG and waves I, III, and V of the ABR, and threshold responses (AP and wave V) were identified.

Results Compared with the ear canal TipTrode electrode, TM electrodes yielded suprathreshold amplitudes that were larger than those from the ear canal electrode, smaller SP–AP ratios, lower AP thresholds, and less variability. These findings can help guide choices made by clinicians, translational investigators, and basic science researchers on which type of extra-tympanic electrode to use for their intended purpose.

Keywords

electrocochleography - action potential - summating potential - auditory brainstem response - SP/AP ratio


Publication History

Received: 12 June 2020

Accepted: 11 December 2020

Article published online:
03 June 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Choudhury B, Fitzpatrick DC, Buchman CA. et al. Intraoperative round window recordings to acoustic stimuli from cochlear implant patients. Otol Neurotol 2012; 33 (09) 1507-1515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ferraro JA, Ferguson R. Tympanic ECochG and conventional ABR: a combined approach for the identification of wave I and the I-V interwave interval. Ear Hear 1989; 10 (03) 161-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 2009; 29 (45) 14077-14085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lee C, Valenzuela CV, Goodman SS, Kallogjeri D, Buchman CA, Lichtenhan JT. Early detection of endolymphatic hydrops using the auditory nerve overlapped waveform (ANOW). Neuroscience 2020; 425: 251-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lichtenhan JT, Wilson US, Hancock KE, Guinan Jr JJ. Medial olivocochlear efferent reflex inhibition of human cochlear nerve responses. Hear Res 2016; 333: 216-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Santarelli R, del Castillo I, Starr A. Auditory neuropathies and electrocochleography. Hear Balance Commun 2013; 11: 130-137
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Al-momani MO, Ferraro JA, Gajewski BJ, Ator G. Improved sensitivity of electrocochleography in the diagnosis of Meniere's disease. Int J Audiol 2009; 48 (11) 811-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chung WH, Cho DY, Choi JY, Hong SH. Clinical usefulness of extratympanic electrocochleography in the diagnosis of Ménière's disease. Otol Neurotol 2004; 25 (02) 144-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Devaiah AK, Dawson KL, Ferraro JA, Ator GA. Utility of area curve ratio electrocochleography in early Meniere disease. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 129 (05) 547-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Grasel SS, Beck RMO, Loureiro RSC, Rossi AC, de Almeida ER, Ferraro J. Normative data for TM electrocochleography measures. J Otol 2017; 12 (02) 68-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Margolis RH, Rieks D, Fournier EM, Levine SE. Tympanic electrocochleography for diagnosis of Menière's disease. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995; 121 (01) 44-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Liberman MC, Epstein MJ, Cleveland SS, Wang H, Maison SF. Toward a differential diagnosis of hidden hearing loss in humans. PLoS One 2016; 11 (09) e0162726
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Ridley CL, Kopun JG, Neely ST, Gorga MP, Rasetshwane DM. Using thresholds in noise to identify hidden hearing loss in humans. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (05) 829-844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Minaya C, Atcherson SR. Simultaneous extratympanic electrocochleography and auditory brainstem responses revisited. Audiology Res 2015; 5 (01) 105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Delgado RE, Ozdamar O. Deconvolution of evoked responses obtained at high stimulus rates. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 115 (03) 1242-1251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kaf WA, Lewis KM, Yavuz E. et al. Fast click rate electrocochleography and auditory brainstem response in normal hearing adults using continuous loop averaging deconvolution. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (02) 244-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Nguyen LT, Harris JP, Nguyen QT. Clinical utility of electrocochleography in the diagnosis and management of Ménière's disease: AOS and ANS membership survey data. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (03) 455-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ferraro JA, Durrant JD. Electrocochleography in the evaluation of patients with Ménière's disease/endolymphatic hydrops. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (01) 45-68
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sajjadi H, Paparella MM. Meniere's disease. Lancet 2008; 372 (9636): 406-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Coats AC. The normal summating potential recorded from external ear canal. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986; 112 (07) 759-768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Alaerts J, Luts H, Wouters J. Evaluation of middle ear function in young children: clinical guidelines for the use of 226- and 1,000-Hz tympanometry. Otol Neurotol 2007; 28 (06) 727-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kaf WA. Effect of tympanic membrane electrode placement on hearing and middle ear. 2017 Oral presentation at the Otorhinolaryngology, Audiology, and Communication Disorders Conference in Dubai, UAE (Jan 17–19, 2017)
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Smith SB, Lichtenhan J, Cone B. Behavioral and pure-tone threshold shifts caused by tympanic membrane electrodes. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (04) e273-e275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ferraro JA, Tibbils RP. SP/AP area ratio in the diagnosis of Ménière's disease. Am J Audiol 1999; 8 (01) 21-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bonucci AS, Hyppolito MA. Comparison of the use of tympanic and extratympanic electrodes for electrocochleography. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (03) 563-566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 McClaskey CM, Dias JW, Dubno JR, Harris KC. Reliability of measures of N1 peak amplitude of the compound action potential in younger and older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2018; 61 (09) 2422-2430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Roland PS, Rosenbloom J, Yellin W, Meyerhoff WL. Intrasubject test-retest variability in clinical electrocochleography. Laryngoscope 1993; 103 (09) 963-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Zhang M. Using concha electrodes to measure cochlear microphonic waveforms and auditory brainstem responses. Trends Amplif 2010; 14 (04) 211-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Synaptopathy in the noise-exposed and aging cochlea: Primary neural degeneration in acquired sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res 2015; 330 (Pt B): 191-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sergeyenko Y, Lall K, Liberman MC, Kujawa SG. Age-related cochlear synaptopathy: an early-onset contributor to auditory functional decline. J Neurosci 2013; 33 (34) 13686-13694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ferraro J, City K. Clinical electrocochleography: Overview of theories, techniques and applications. Audiology Online. 2000 Retrieved from https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/clinical-electrocochleography-overview-theories-techniques-1121. Accessed January 12, 2021
    Google Scholar