Effects of Artifact Rejection and Bayesian Weighting on the Auditory Brainstem Response During Quiet and Active Behavioral Conditions Purpose To evaluate the effects of 2 noise reduction techniques on the auditory brainstem response (ABR). Method ABRs of 20 normal hearing adults were recorded during quiet and active behavioral conditions using 2 stimulus intensity levels. Wave V amplitudes and residual noise root-mean-square values were measured following the ... Research Article
Research Article  |   December 01, 2006
Effects of Artifact Rejection and Bayesian Weighting on the Auditory Brainstem Response During Quiet and Active Behavioral Conditions
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jason Tait Sanchez
    Kent State University, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH
  • Donald Gans
    Kent State University, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH
  • Contact author: Jason Tait Sanchez, Department of Neurobiology, E108, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, 4209 State Route 44, P.O. Box 95, Rootstown, OH 44272. E-mail: jtsanche@kent.edu.
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / Acoustics / Hearing Disorders / Research and Technology / Research Articles
Research Article   |   December 01, 2006
Effects of Artifact Rejection and Bayesian Weighting on the Auditory Brainstem Response During Quiet and Active Behavioral Conditions
American Journal of Audiology, December 2006, Vol. 15, 154-163. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2006/019)
History: Received November 15, 2005 , Revised June 1, 2006 , Accepted October 10, 2006
 
American Journal of Audiology, December 2006, Vol. 15, 154-163. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2006/019)
History: Received November 15, 2005; Revised June 1, 2006; Accepted October 10, 2006

Purpose To evaluate the effects of 2 noise reduction techniques on the auditory brainstem response (ABR).

Method ABRs of 20 normal hearing adults were recorded during quiet and active behavioral conditions using 2 stimulus intensity levels. Wave V amplitudes and residual noise root-mean-square values were measured following the offline application of artifact rejection and Bayesian weighting. Repeated measures analysis of variance and Bonferroni adjusted pairwise t tests were utilized to evaluate significant main effects and interactions between the 2 noise reduction techniques.

Results ABRs recorded during the quiet behavioral condition resulted in minimal differences in wave V amplitude and noise reduction improvement, suggesting that the 2 techniques were equally effective under ideal recording situations. During the active behavioral condition, however, the techniques differed significantly in the ability to preserve the evoked potential and reduce noise. Consequently, strict artifact rejection levels resulted in an inherent underestimation of wave V amplitudes when compared with the Bayesian approach.

Conclusion Artifact rejection had a detrimental effect on waveform morphology of the ABR. This could lead to difficulty in ABR interpretation when patients are active and ultimately result in diagnostic errors.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Drs. John Hawks, Richard Klich, Susan Motts, Kiran Nataraj, Craig Newman, and Jeff Wenstrup for their assistance on an earlier version of this article.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access