SLPOtherTrends in hearing2026

Optimal Parameters for Measuring Multiband Auditory Brainstem Responses to Continuous Speech.

Melissa J Polonenko, Benjamin R Eisenreich

PMID 42411029

WHAT IT FOUND

Reshaping the speech sounds cut the median time to record all ten brainstem responses from 21.3 minutes to 10.2, and lowering the narrator's voice pitch sped things up further, so most people finished testing in under 20 to 30 minutes.

Key findings

01Adding chirp-phase to the speech stimuli sped up recording of all ten responses by a median of 2.24 times, cutting the median time from 21.3 minutes to 10.2 minutes. The gain was concentrated in the lowest frequency band, where the response was 1.48 times larger.

02Lowering both narrators' voice pitch to about 100 Hz boosted response size and saved testing time, most of all for the narrator whose original pitch was 180 Hz, where a median of 31.75 minutes was saved against 2.00 minutes for the narrator at 118 Hz.

03Three narrators whose original pitch was below 170 Hz, each lowered to 90 Hz, all produced usable responses, and the lower the original pitch the larger the responses and the shorter the test times (medians of 11.15, 7.43 and 22.60 minutes).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they found

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Every participant had normal hearing. The test is being built to characterise hearing loss in people who cannot tell us what they hear, and this study says nothing about how it performs in them. Participants were mostly in their early twenties and mostly women; the authors note a clear gender bias which could affect the absolute size and timing of the responses. Each experiment used a different group of people, so comparisons between experiments are comparisons between different participants. Test speed was estimated from signal-to-noise ratios rather than measured directly, and estimates for the slowest responders were extrapolated up to 120 minutes rather than recorded. The modelling assumed a flat, normal audiogram, and the modelled wave V timings did not perfectly match the measured ones. Everyone was tested at a single conversational level of about 65 dB SPL; the authors suggest a higher level might be faster but did not test it. The lowered-pitch recordings were re-synthesised from the original narrators' audio rather than newly recorded voices. Recording sessions were held to about two hours because people became restless and recordings got noisy beyond that.

Declared interests

Funded by a Hearing Health Foundation Emerging Research Grant and the University of Minnesota's Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program. The authors declared no competing interests.

The easy way to misread this

Do not take this as evidence the test is ready for the clinic or that it will work in people with hearing loss. All 55 participants had normal hearing and were mostly in their twenties, and the reported test times are estimated from signal-to-noise ratios, with the slowest ones extrapolated rather than measured.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →