A comparison of the LS CE-Chirp and click evoked auditory brainstem response stimuli for neuro-diagnostic assessment in order to determine the preferable stimulus

Please be advised that the site will be down for maintenance on Sunday, September 1, 2024, from 08:00 to 18:00, and again on Monday, September 2, 2024, from 08:00 to 09:00. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Biagio de Jager, Leigh
dc.contributor.coadvisor Heinze, Barbara M.
dc.contributor.postgraduate Tucker, Paige
dc.date.accessioned 2024-08-07T09:05:38Z
dc.date.available 2024-08-07T09:05:38Z
dc.date.created 2020-04
dc.date.issued 2019
dc.description Dissertation (MA (Audiology))--University of Pretoria, 2019. en_US
dc.description.abstract Purpose: To compare LS CE-Chirp and click evoked neuro-diagnostic auditory brainstem responses (ABR) for the purpose of determining the preferable stimulus for assessment. This is necessary for the improvement of neural synchrony and compensation for the delay of the sound wave whilst it travels through the cochlea. This will facilitate more successful, efficient and effective neurological ABR assessments. Method: This was a within subject comparative, exploratory research design. Participants included 34 normal-hearing individuals (aged 18-25 years, mean age 22.12 years). A comparison was completed between the ABR wave formations evoked by the click and LS CE-Chirp stimuli at 80 dBnHL at stimulus repetition rate of 27.4 Hz and 61.1 Hz with maximum permissible residual noise levels of 40 nV. Results: The LS CE-Chirp evoked ABR displayed later absolute latencies and shorter interpeak latencies compared to the click-evoked ABR. Significantly larger amplitudes were consistent for the LS CE-Chirp wave formations (p<0.001) with the exception of the wave I for the rarefaction polarity. Residual noise levels were consistently higher for the LS CE-Chirp stimuli, however, there was no correlation present between the amplitudes and the comparative residual noise levels. Conclusions: The LS CE-chirp stimulus elicited considerably larger waveform amplitudes, which facilitate more accurate and timely ABR assessments compared to the click. The lack of correlation between amplitude and residual noise levels suggested independence of residual noise levels, and therefore were likely due to the increased neural synchrony inherent to the chirp stimuli. The click stimulus is still advocated for during neuro-diagnostic assessments as despite the larger LS CE-Chirp amplitudes, further research regarding the correlation with auditory-neural pathology is required before the routine use of the LS CE-Chirp stimulus can be advocated over the well-established click stimulus for neuro-diagnostic purposes. en_US
dc.description.availability Unrestricted en_US
dc.description.degree MA (Audiology) en_US
dc.description.department Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology en_US
dc.description.faculty Faculty of Humanities en_US
dc.identifier.citation * en_US
dc.identifier.other A2020 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2263/97484
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher University of Pretoria
dc.rights © 2021 University of Pretoria. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of Pretoria. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the University of Pretoria.
dc.subject UCTD en_US
dc.subject Auditory brainstem response en_US
dc.subject Neuro-diagnostic en_US
dc.subject Neurological ABR en_US
dc.title A comparison of the LS CE-Chirp and click evoked auditory brainstem response stimuli for neuro-diagnostic assessment in order to determine the preferable stimulus en_US
dc.type Dissertation en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record