Effects of Stimulus Repetition Rate and Frequency on the Auditory Brainstem Response in Normal, Cochlear-Impaired, and VIII Nerve/Brainstem-Impaired Subjects The effects of signal repetition rate and frequency on the auditory brainstem responses of normal listeners, of persons with cochlear lesions, and of persons with VIII nerve/brainstem lesions were evaluated. The normal group exhibited more waves I and II than did the cochlear and VIII/brainstem groups. The normal and cochlear ... Research Article
Research Article  |   December 01, 1983
Effects of Stimulus Repetition Rate and Frequency on the Auditory Brainstem Response in Normal, Cochlear-Impaired, and VIII Nerve/Brainstem-Impaired Subjects
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Cynthia G. Fowler
    VA Medical Center, Long Beach; Universiy of California, Irvine
  • Douglas Noffsinger
    VA Medical Center, West Los Angeles; University of California, Los Angeles
Article Information
Research Articles
Research Article   |   December 01, 1983
Effects of Stimulus Repetition Rate and Frequency on the Auditory Brainstem Response in Normal, Cochlear-Impaired, and VIII Nerve/Brainstem-Impaired Subjects
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1983, Vol. 26, 560-567. doi:10.1044/jshr.2604.560
History: Received April 12, 1982 , Accepted March 15, 1983
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1983, Vol. 26, 560-567. doi:10.1044/jshr.2604.560
History: Received April 12, 1982; Accepted March 15, 1983
Web of Science® Times Cited: 15

The effects of signal repetition rate and frequency on the auditory brainstem responses of normal listeners, of persons with cochlear lesions, and of persons with VIII nerve/brainstem lesions were evaluated. The normal group exhibited more waves I and II than did the cochlear and VIII/brainstem groups. The normal and cochlear groups exhibited more waves III and V than did the VIII nerve/brainstem group. The latency of wave I was not different among groups, whereas wave V was significantly later in the VIII nerve/brainstem group than in the other groups. Waves I, III, and V were later for 50/s than for 10/s. Waves I and III displayed shorter latencies for 4000 Hz than for 2000 Hz, whereas wave V displayed similar latencies for the two stimuli. In conclusion, cochlear pathology (⩽65 dB HL) does not prolong the latencies of waves I and V. A dual mechanism is discussed to explain the rate-dependent latency shift of wave V.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access