Download PDF
Semin Hear 2000; 21(4): 367-378
DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-13465
Copyright © 2000 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

TECHNIQUES FOR NEONATAL HEARING SCREENING

Mark E. Lutman
  • Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, United Kingdom
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2000 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The aim of screening of hearing in neonates is to concentrate cases with material disorder into a manageable group that may be referred for more definitive diagnostic testing. Material disorder is defined as a permanent bilateral hearing impairment of at least 40 dB averaged over the frequencies 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. The two most common approaches involve automated auditory brain stem response (AABR) and transiently evoked otoacoustic emission (TEOAE) techniques. Both techniques can achieve adequate specificity in excess of 95%. Provisional estimates of sensitivity suggest that 80 to 90% of cases will be correctly classified, which, although not ideal, is adequate for the purpose. Conventional AABR and TEOAE techniques do not provide frequency-specific threshold estimates. Implementation and validation of steady-state evoked potential (SSEP) and distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) techniques may add this information. It is concluded that current techniques are fit for the purpose of effective neonatal hearing screening programs.

KEYWORD

neonate - hearing - screening

REFERENCES

  • 1 Probst R. Introduction to neonatal hearing screening. In: Proceedings of European Consensus Development Conference on Neonatal Hearing Screening, Milan, May 15-16, 1998 1998: 14-17
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Lutman M E, Grandori F. Screening for neonatal hearing defects. European consensus statement.  Eur J Pediatr . 1999;  158 95-96
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bennett M J. Trials with the auditory response cradle. I. Neonatal responses to auditory stimuli.  Br J Audiol . 1979;  13 125-134
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Tucker S M, Bhattacharya J. Screening of hearing impairment in the newborn using the auditory response cradle.  Arch Dis Child . 1992;  67 911-919
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rickards F W, Tan L E, Cohen L T. Auditory steady-state evoked potential in newborns.  Br J Audiol . 1994;  28 327-337
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Lins O G, Picton T W. Auditory steady state responses to multiple simultaneous stimuli.  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol . 1995;  96 420-432
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Wong P KH, Bickford R G. Brain stem auditory evoked potentials: the use of noise estimates.  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol . 1980;  50 25-34
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Don M, Elberling C. Evaluating residual background noise in human auditory brain-stem presponses.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1984;  96 2746-2757
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Mason S M. On-line computer scoring of the auditory brainstem response for estimation of hearing threshold.  Audiology . 1984;  23 277-296
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Hatzopoulos S, Tsakanikos M, Grzanka A. Comparison of neonatal transient evoked otoacoustic emission responses recorded with linear and QuickScreen protocols.  Audiology . 2000;  39 70-79
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Rasmussen A N, Osterhammel P A, Johannesen P T, Borgkvist B. Neonatal hearing screening using otoacoustic emissions elicited by maximum length sequences.  Br J Audiol . 1998;  32 355-366
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Whitehead M L, Lonsbury-Martin B L, Martin G K. Evidence for two discrete sources of 2f1-f2 distortion-product otoacoustic emissions in rabbit. I. Differential dependence on stimulus parameters.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1992;  91 1587-1606
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Dirckx J J, Daemers K, Somers T. Numerical assessment of TOAE screening results: currently used criteria and their effect on TOAE prevalence figures.  Acta Otolaryngol . 1996;  116 672-679
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Buller G, Lutman M E. Automatic classification of transiently evoked otoacoustic emissions using an artificial neural network.  Br J Audiol . 1998;  32 235-247
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Rance G, Beer D A, Cone-Wesson B. Clinical findings for a group of infants and young children with auditory neuropathy.  Ear Hear . 1999;  20 238-252
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Coats A C, Martin J L. Human auditory nerve action potentials and brain stem evoked responses.  Arch Otolaryngol . 1977;  103 605-622
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Davis A, Bamford J, Wilson I. A critical review of the role of neonatal hearing screening in the detection of congenital hearing impairment.  Health Technol Assess . 1997;  1(10) 1-177
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Davis A. Performance of neonatal and infant hearing screens: Sensitivity and specificity. In: Proceedings of European Consensus Development Conference on Neonatal Hearing Screening Milan, May 15-16, 1998: 40-50
    Search in Google Scholar