PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 6716552

A neonatal hearing screening research program using brainstem electric response audiometry.

Abstract

Results of brainstem electric response audiometry (BERA) for intensive care nursery graduates and babies from the general nursery are described. At-risk babies received both screening and more detailed BERA before hospital discharge. The latter test was repeated after four months. From 2,597 risk assessments, 421 were at risk and 379 have been tested. The specificity of 40 dB click screening is good, but its sensitivity is only moderate. Follow-up BERA detected 25 cases of hearing loss, 12 having moderate loss in at least one ear. Discrepancies between predischarge and follow-up tests occurred, especially for mild losses. There was substantial resolution of hearing loss, but also some emergent mild loss. These changes support BERA at about four months as the determinant of habilitation, as opposed to predischarge testing. Differences between click and frequency-specific BERA were found, suggesting that click evaluations alone are insufficient.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M L Hyde, K Riko, H Corbin, M Moroso, P W Alberti. 1984. A neonatal hearing screening research program using brainstem electric response audiometry.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6716552/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Normal-hearing and hearing-impaired subjects' ability to just follow conversation in competing speech, reversed speech, and noise backgrounds.

The performance on a conversation-following task by 24 hearing-impaired persons was compared with that of 24 matched controls with normal hearing in the presence of three background noises: (a) speech-spectrum random noise, (b) a male voice, and (c) the male voice played in reverse. The subjects' task was to readjust the sound level of a female voice (signal), every time the signal voice was attenuated, to the subjective level at which it was just possible to understand what was being said. To assess the benefit of lipreading, half of the material was presented audiovisually and half auditorily only. It was predicted that background speech would have a greater masking effect than reversed speech, which would in turn have a lesser masking effect than random noise. It was predicted that hearing-impaired subjects would perform more poorly than the normal-hearing controls in a background of speech. The influence of lipreading was expected to be constant across groups and conditions. The results showed that the hearing-impaired subjects were equally affected by the three background noises and that normal-hearing persons were less affected by the background speech than by noise. The performance of the normal-hearing persons was superior to that of the hearing-impaired subjects. The prediction about lipreading was confirmed. The results were explained in terms of the reduced temporal resolution by the hearing-impaired subjects.

Audiometry