Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10(03): 124-132
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748472
Original Article

Hit and False-Positive Rates for the Middle Latency Response in Patients with Central Nervous System Involvement

Frank Musiek
Section of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Section of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
,
Lori Charette
Department of Audiology, Gaylord Rehabilitation Hospital, Wallingford, Connecticut
,
Tim Kelly
Section of Otolaryngology, Department of Surgery, Section of Neurology, Department of Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
,
Wei Wei Lee
Department of Otolaryngology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
,
Erik Musiek
College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

We sought to determine the test efficiency of the middle latency evoked response for identifying or differentiating subjects with and without central nervous system (CNS) involvement. Receiver operating characteristic curves were established for hit and false-positive rates for 26 subjects with CNS lesions and 26 control subjects matched for age and hearing sensitivity. The lesions involved but were not limited to the auditory regions of the CNS. Middle latency evoked response latency and amplitude measurements were made for the Na and Pa waves recorded at C3 and C4 electrode sites following stimulation of the left and right ears. Intrasubject comparisons were made for ipsilateral and contralateral stimulation/recording conditions. Amplitude measures were superior to latency measures. For amplitude, percentage differences from contralateral comparisons proved to be the most sensitive and specific measure. The clinical implications of findings are discussed.

Abbreviations: ABR = auditory brainstem response, CANS = central auditory nervous systems, CNS = central nervous system, MLR = middle latency response, ROC = receiver operating characteristics

Key Words

Central auditory disorders - central auditory nervous system - central auditory processing - central nervous system - evoked potentials - middle latency evoked response


Publication History

Article published online:
28 April 2022

© 1999. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • Arehole S, Augustine L, Simhadri R. (1995). Middle latency response in children with learning disabilities: preliminary findings. J Commun Disord 28:21–38.
  • Celebisoy N, Aydogdu I, Ekmekci O, Akurekli O. (1996). Middle latency auditory evoked potentials (MLAEPs) in MS. Acta Neurol Scand 93:318–321.
  • Chambers R, Griffiths S. (1991). Effects of age on the adult auditory middle latency response. Hear Res 51:1–10.
  • Chermak GD, Musiek FE. (1997). Central Auditory Processing Disorders. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
  • Galaburda A, Sanides F. (1980). Cytoarchitectonic organization of the human auditory cortex. J Comp Neurol 190:597–610.
  • Geisler C, Frishkopf L, Rosenblith W. (1958). Extra cranial responses to acoustic clicks in man. Science 128: 1210–1211.
  • Hall, JW III. (1992). Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Ho K, Kileny P, Paccioretti D, McLean D. (1987). Neurologic, audiologic, and electrophysiologic sequelae of bilateral temporal lobe lesions. Arch Neurol 44:982–987.
  • Hurley RM, Musiek FE. (1997). Effectiveness of three central auditory processing (CAP) tests in identifying cerebral lesions. J Am Acad Audiol 8:257–262.
  • Ibanez V, Deiber P, Fischer C. (1989). Middle latency auditory evoked potentials and cortical lesions: criteria of interhemispheric asymmetry. Arch Neurol 46: 1325–1332.
  • Kileny P, Paccioretti D, Wilson A. (1987). Effects of cortical lesions on middle latency auditory evoked responses (MLR). Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 66:108–120.
  • Kraus Ν, Kileny Ρ, McGee Τ. (1994). Middle latency auditory evoked potentials. In: Katz J, ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 4th Ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 387–405.
  • Kraus Ν, Özdamar Ο, Hier D, Stein L. (1982). Auditory middle latency response in patients with cortical lesions. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 5:247–287.
  • Madell JR, Goldstein R. (1972). Relation between loudness and the amplitude of the early components of the averaged electroencephalic response. J Speech Hear Res 15:134–141.
  • Musiek FE. (1991). Auditory evoked responses in site of lesion assessment. In: Rintelmann WF, ed. Hearing Assessment. 2nd Ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Musiek FE, Baran JA. (1991). Assessment of the human auditory system. In: Altschuler R, Bobbin R, Clopton B, Hoffman D, eds. Neurobiology of Hearing: The Central Auditory System. New York: Raven Press, 411–438.
  • Musiek FE, Baran JA, Pinheiro M. (1994). Neuroaudiology Case Studies. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
  • Musiek FE, Lee W. (1997). Conventional and maximum length sequences middle latency response in patients with central nervous system lesions. J Am AcadAudiol 8:173–180.
  • Pool KD, Finitzo T, Tzong-Hong, Rogers J, Pickett R. (1989). Infarction of the superior temporal gyrus: a description of auditory evoked potential latency and amplitude topology. Ear Hear 10:144–152.
  • Shehata-Dieler W, Shimizu H, Soliman S, Tusa R. (1991). Middle latency auditory evoked potentials in temporal lobe disorders. Ear Hear 12:377–388.
  • Suzuki T, Hirabayashi M, Kobayashi K. (1983). Auditory middle latency responses in young children. Br J Audiol 17:5–9.
  • Turner RG, Robinette M, Bauch CD. (In press). Clinical decision analysis. In: Musiek FE, Rintelmann WF, eds. Contemporary Perspectives in Hearing Assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.