论文部分内容阅读
对 42例 74耳（正常听力组 32耳，检案中主诉听力下降 42耳）分别进行纯音测定，声导抗测定，听性脑干反应 (Auditory Brainstem Response,ABR)及 0.5～ 2kHz范围的 40Hz听觉相关电位 (40Hertz Auditory Event－ related Potential,40Hz AERP)测定，对其中 20耳进行睡眠及清醒两种状态的 40Hz AERP测定。将纯音听阈、 40Hz AERP反应阈、 ABR反应阈三者之间进行比较分析。结果表明，正常听力耳 40Hz AERP反应阈值较纯音测听阈值高，在不同频率的校正值 (差值 )不同， 0.5 kHz为 12.7± 6.4(dBnHL)； 1kHz为 14.7± 6.3(dBnHL)； 2 kHz为 15± 5.6(dBnHL)。 ABR阈值比行为听阈高，校正值为 8.9± 5.3(dBnHL)。睡眠状态时 40Hz AERP阈值较清醒状态阈值高，校正值为 9.7± 2.45(dBnHL)。检案中主诉听力下降者主、客观语音频率均值之间明显不相符 ,误差率为 61％。本研究表明单纯使用 ABR、纯音测听中任何一种方法估计语音频率听阈均有一定的误差。
Totally 42 patients with 74 ears (32 ears in normal hearing group and 42 ears hearing loss in prosecution) were measured with pure tone, acoustics, auditory brainstem response (ABR) and 40Hz at 0.5 ~ 2kHz 40Hertz Auditory Event-related Potential (40 Hz AERP), and 40 Hz AERP measurements were performed on 20 ears in both sleep and awake states. Pure tone threshold, 40Hz AERP threshold and ABR threshold were compared between the three. The results showed that the normal hearing threshold of 40 Hz AERP threshold was higher than the threshold of pure tone audiometry. The calibration values (difference) at different frequencies were different, 0.5 kHz was 12.7 ± 6.4 (dBnHL), 1 kHz was 14.7 ± 6.3 (dBnHL) and 2 kHz 15 ± 5.6 (dBnHL). The ABR threshold was higher than the behavioral threshold, with a corrected value of 8.9 ± 5.3 (dBnHL). The 40 Hz AERP threshold at sleep was higher than the awake threshold, with a corrected value of 9.7 ± 2.45 (dBnHL). In the prosecution case, the difference between the main hearing loss and the average objective speech frequency did not match with an error rate of 61%. This study shows that purely using ABR, pure tone audiometry in any method to estimate the threshold frequency of speech have some error.