• Users Online: 150
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 99-104

Comparison of chirp and click-evoked brainstem response stimulus in children with moderate and severe sensorineural hearing loss

1 Audiology Unit, ENT Department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Asyut, Egypt
2 Hearing and Speech Institute, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Mahran M Sanaa
Hearing and Speech Institute, Cairo
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JCMRP.JCMRP_1_17

Rights and Permissions

Introduction Auditory brainstem response using click stimuli enable global objective estimation of hearing threshold. Recently, it has been suggested that a chirp stimulus may produce a synchronous response from a large portion of basilar membrane. The chirp was designed to produce simultaneous displacement maxima along the cochlear partition by compensating for frequency-dependent traveling-time differences. Material and methods In this study, response characteristic of both click and chirp stimuli are compared in children. We compared latency and amplitude of wave V at different intensity levels and waves I and III at high level. Results and conclusion Results show that wave V on using chirp stimuli could be detected easier with shorted in latency and larger in amplitude than in click auditory brainstem response. However, click stimulus was better than chirp stimulus at high-intensity levels with respect to the identification of waves I and III.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded339    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal