Method & Material: This study was performed on 36 normal-hearing subjects aged 18-25 years for survey of temporary threshold shift (TTS) by transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. Finding: Noise can affect the pure-tone thresholds and (TEOAEs) amplitudes. When cochlea affected by noise, evaluating TEOAE is more suitable than pure-tone audiometry. Because of this test, is objective an unaffected by attention and alertness and can be evaluated in difficult to test subject and also have high carefulness and can be performed in a quiet, but not sound-proof room.

Background and Aim: One of the most significant complaints of children with learning disability (LD) is difficulty in understanding speech in the presence of background noise. Different studies have shown that the medial olivocochlear bundle(MOCB) may play a role in hearing in noise. The MOCB function can be evaluated by the contralateral suppression of tone burst evoked otoacoustic emissions (TBEOAEs).The aim of the present study was to evaluate frequency specifications of MOCB by the contralateral suppression of TBEOAEs at 1,2,3 and 4 KHz in response to contralateral white noise in LD students.
Materials and Methods: This case-control study was conducted on 34 LD students aged 7-11 years and 31 normal students matched for age.The contralateral suppression of TBEOAEs was evaluated by comparing TBEOAEs amplitudes with and without contralateral white noise.
Results: In the absence of noise there was no significant difference between TBEOAEs amplitudes of two groups. In the presence of noise significant decrease was seen in TBEOAEs amplitudes at 1,2,3 and 4 KHz in both groups. In LD students the amount of this decrement at 1,2 and 4 KHz was lower than in the normal students.
Conclusion: A significant diminished suppression effect at 1,2 and 4 KHz in LD students indicates that at these frequency regions MOCB function was reduced. Therefore its suggested that the assessment of MOCB by evaluating the suppression effect of TBEOAEs included in the test battery approach used in the diagnostic of LD students.

Background and Aim: Internal Evaluation means assessment of abilities and potentials. To promote the quality of education, research, health and finally rehabilitation is one of the most important roles and responsibilities of the universities. Promotion of quality of the theoretical and practical education for the Audiology students provides this major with its final goal that is to serve society. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOTs) of the Audiology department and to identify the ways of diminishing weaknesses and threats.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on undergraduates, postgraduates, graduates, academic staff, and the director of Audiology department in 9 areas, including management flowchart, educational programs, instructional methods and curriculum models, students, educational areas and equipments, graduate, academic staff, research, and treatment. Data were collected by questionnaires. Results were analyzed descriptively and were expressed in raw and percentage.
Results: The scores of areas in two measures were as follows: management flowchart 4.36 (87.31%), educational programs 4.17 (83.58%), instructional methods and curriculum models 4.01 (80.26%), students 3.43 (68.60%), educational areas and equipment 3.60 (72.11%), from the view of undergraduates, post graduates, faculties, graduates 3.60 (72.03%), academic staff 4.03 (80.6%), research 3.52 (70.4%), and treatment 4.54 (90.80%). The highest score was, therefore, of the treatment area and the lowest belonged to the educational area and equipments. The score of the Audiology department, as the main factor was 3.89 out of 5 which was 77.88%.
Conclusion: Audiology group total score indicates the desirable status that can be promoted to the most desirable if SWOTs are considered.

Background and Aim: Middle latency auditory evoked potentials (MLAEPs) development takes longer time than the auditory brainstem response (ABR) development does, which makes them difficult to record in some children. The purpose of this study was to investigate the age effect on characteristics and detection of MLAEPs in children and adults.
Materials and Methods: This cross sectional study was conducted on 15 children aged   7-12 yr and 31 adults aged 20-50 yr with normal peripheral hearing. To investigate precisely, children were divided in two subgroups of older and younger than 10 years old, as well. The MLAEPs amplitudes and latencies were recorded by conventional protocol and compared.
Results: Adult Na mean latency, 20.86 ms, was less than that of children, 22.86 ms, (p=0.0025).  In contrast, the adult Nb mean latency, 44.93 ms, was longer (p=0.0001). Children Nb mean latency was 42.02 ms. There was no significant difference in MLAEP amplitudes and latencies between two children subgroups, although variance was more in younger children.
Conclusion: MLAEPs are reliably recorded after 7 years old. Characteristics of MLAEPs are different in adults and children so that the primary MLAEPs generators have a course of development extending beyond the first decade of life. As those potentials were recorded in all children, it is suggested to be used in their test batteries for hearing evaluation.

Background and Aim: One of the most important problems of children who suffer from autism is abnormality in receiving and integrating sensory inputs, especially hearing input. It has been shown that brainstem has a key role in receiving, encoding and integrating hearing input. Auditory brainstem response (ABR) is a tool by which we can evaluate this function. The purpose of this study was to assess and to compare autistic and normal children brainstem hearing function.
Materials and Methods: This case-control study was conducted on thirty (58 ears) autistic and thirty (57 ears) normal 6-12 years old children. The children with autism were divided into slight and severe subgroups according to Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised questionnaire. Click-evoked ABR was recorded and compared between groups.
Results: There was significant difference between two groups V and III wave latencies and I-III and I-V interpeak latencies (p<0.05). In fact, comparison of the results of autism subgroups with normal children indicated that the latencies of the severe subgroup significantly prolonged.
Conclusion: Increasing latencies of ABR waves in severe subgroup maybe due to abnormality in low level of brainstem. Brainstem abnormality may result in exacerbating the symptom of autism. It is therefore suggested that ABR is included in diagnostic test batteries for these patients.