Back

Normative ranges for auditory brainstem response wave I amplitude: A potential diagnostic indicator of cochlear deafferentation

Kampel, S. D.; McMillan, G. P.; Heassler, A. E.; Whittle, N. K.; Szabo, H. A.; Bramhall, N. F.

2025-11-15 otolaryngology
10.1101/2025.11.13.25340158 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeWhile cochlear synaptopathy has limited impact on auditory thresholds, there is increasing evidence that cochlear deafferentation is associated with auditory perceptual deficits. However, there is currently no means for diagnosing synaptopathy or deafferentation in individual patients. The objectives of this study were to establish normative ranges for auditory brainstem response (ABR) wave I amplitude, a measure sensitive to synaptopathy in animals, in a population at low risk for synaptopathy and then compare a population at high-risk for synaptopathy to the normative ranges. MethodsThe low-risk sample consisted of 169 non-Veteran young adults with normal audiograms, minimal self-reported noise exposure history, and no auditory complaints (tinnitus, decreased sound tolerance, or speech perception in noise difficulty). ABR wave I amplitude normative ranges were generated for 2, 4, and 8 kHz tonebursts and were statistically adjusted for sex and average distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) levels. Ninety-one military Veterans with normal audiograms and at least one auditory complaint were included in the high-risk comparison sample. ResultsWhile the DPOAE-adjusted ABR normative ranges were effective at distinguishing between the low- and high-risk samples, the results also indicated that adjusting the ABR normative ranges for OHC dysfunction may not be necessary and could be problematic. ABR normative ranges that were adjusted only for sex were able to differentiate between the low- and high-risk samples, with 51% of the high-risk sample falling below the normative ranges for a 105 dB peSPL 8 kHz toneburst. ConclusionsIn patients with normal audiograms, sex-specific ABR wave I amplitude normative ranges can be used by clinicians to identify patients with high degrees of cochlear deafferentation.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
20.9%
2
Ear & Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
20.1%
3
Hearing Research
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
50% of probability mass above
4
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.9%
5
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.2%
6
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.6%
7
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.3%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
9
Trends in Hearing
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
10
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
11
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
12
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
13
Cells
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
14
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
15
ACS Chemical Neuroscience
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
16
Applied Sciences
24 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
17
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
18
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
19
Pharmaceuticals
33 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
20
Chemical Senses
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.5%
21
Molecular Therapy Methods & Clinical Development
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.5%