Background and Aim: It is not known how electrocochleography components of action potentials (AP) and summating potentials (SP) are changed in response to CE-chirp stimulus using extra-tympanic electrodes. This study was done for comparing summating potentials and action potentials specifications in response to CE-chirp and click stimuli.

Methods: Electrocochleography components of action potentials and summating potentials were recorded in 16 normal hearing subjects (8 men and 8 women) aged 22-30 years (mean: 26.7 with SD 2.5 years) with audiometric (250-8000 Hz) hearing thresholds of 15 dB HL or better in response to click and CE-chirp stimulus at 90 dB nHL. Amplitude, duration, latency and area of summating potentials and action potentials and SP/AP amplitude and area ratios were compared.

Results: Among the measured parameters, action potentials amplitude in response to CE-chirp stimulus (0.41 with SD 0.26 µV ) was significantly smaller than action potentials amplitude in response to click (0.61 with SD 0.29 µV ) stimulus (p<0.005). Relative frequency of detecting summating potentials in response to CE-chirp (68.7%) was lower than (100%) click (p<0.005).

Conclusion: Recording electrocochleography component of summating potentials and action potentials with CE-chirp stimulus at high intensity level in normal hearing individuals shows no advantage over click stimulus. Small amplitude of summating potentials as a major problem of extra-tympanic electrocochleography cannot be solved using CE-chirp stimulus.

Background and Aim: CE-Chirp stimulus has been developed for stimulating more apical regions of the cochlea. Inadequacy of clinical information on the latency and amplitude characteristics of ABR evoked by CE-chirp at different levels in addition to discrepancy in identifying earlier ABR waveforms using CE-chirp stimulus are the reasons of this study.

Methods: This study was done by recoding ABR to click and broad-band CE-chirp stimuli in the right ear of 15 non-randomly selected normal-hearing individuals with age range of 20-30 years old. Frequency of recordable waves I and III, as well as threshold, amplitude, and latency of wave V were compared in response to click and CE-Chirp at 20-80 dB nHL.

Results: At 80 dB nHL, click stimulus evokes waves I and III more frequently than chirp stimulus (p=0.012 and p=0.016 respectively). At 20 and 40 dB nHL, wave V latency evoked by CE-Chirp is significantly longer than wave V latency evoked by click (p=0.012 and p=0.0001 respectively) however, at 80 dB nHL wave V latency evoked by CE-Chirp is shorter than click (p=0.0001). Wave V amplitude for CE-Chirp is significantly larger than for click at levels of 20, 40 and 60 dB nHL (p=0.0001, p=0.0001 and p=0.013 respectively). Wave V threshold is approximately 5 dB lower with CE-chirp compared to click (p=0.014).

Conclusion: Except at high levels, CE-Chirp evokes wave V with larger amplitude and lower threshold than click. Possibility of recording earlier ABR waves is reduced with CE-chirp stimulus.