# ABR Features in Ski-Slope Hearing Loss for Hearing Threshold Estimation: A Comparative Clinical Study of Click and CE-Chirp Stimuli

## TL;DR

This study compares click and CE-Chirp stimuli for estimating hearing thresholds in adults and children with ski-sloping hearing loss, finding that CE-Chirp offers better threshold estimation and neural synchrony.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into the performance of CE-Chirp versus click stimuli in ski-sloping hearing loss, particularly in pediatric populations.

## Key findings

- CE-Chirp stimulation yields lower ABR thresholds and stronger correlations with behavioral audiometric measures in adults with ski-sloping hearing loss.
- CE-Chirp is associated with shorter wave V latencies and larger amplitudes in hearing-impaired children.
- Discrepancies between click- and CE-Chirp-derived thresholds may require frequency-specific assessments for accurate diagnosis.

## Abstract

Background: Auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) are widely used for objective hearing threshold estimation in both adults and children. Click and CE-Chirp stimuli differ substantially in cochlear activation and neural synchrony, yet their relative performance in patients with ski-sloping hearing loss remains insufficiently characterized, particularly with regard to pediatric diagnostic implications. Methods: This study compared ABRs elicited by click and CE-Chirp stimuli in adults with ski-sloping sensorineural hearing loss. The same comparison was also performed in a pediatric cohort including hearing-impaired and normal-hearing children. Adult subjects were further stratified according to audiometric configuration (DROP 1 kHz vs. DROP 2 kHz). ABR thresholds, wave V latency, amplitude, and detectability were analyzed across stimulus types and intensity levels. Associations between ABR thresholds and behavioral audiometric measures were also examined. Results: In adults with ski-sloping hearing loss, CE-Chirp stimulation yielded significantly lower ABR threshold estimates than click stimulation, particularly in the DROP 2 kHz subgroup, and showed stronger correlations with behavioral pure-tone averages across low-, mid-, and high-frequency ranges. Wave V latencies were consistently shorter with CE-Chirp stimulation, while wave V amplitudes did not differ significantly between stimuli at suprathreshold levels. In children, ABR thresholds obtained with CE-Chirp were generally equal to or lower than those obtained with clicks, although statistical significance was limited by sample size. CE-Chirp stimulation was associated with shorter wave V latencies in both hearing-impaired and normal-hearing children and produced larger wave V amplitudes at selected suprathreshold intensities in hearing-impaired children. Conclusions: Click and CE-Chirp stimuli provide complementary information in ABR assessment. While click stimulation remains essential for robust waveform identification, CE-Chirp stimulation appears to offer advantages in threshold estimation and neural synchrony, particularly in ski-sloping hearing loss and pediatric evaluations. Discrepancies between click- and CE-Chirp-derived ABR thresholds should not be attributed solely to maturational or synchrony-related factors but may warrant further frequency-specific audiological assessment to optimize diagnosis and rehabilitation strategies.