Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) simulator to enhance students understanding towards analyzing ABR waveforms

• Main Authors: Dzulkarnain, Ahmad Aidil Arafat, Sapian, Faizah, Wilson, Wayne, Bradley, Andrew, Jamaluddin, Saiful Adli, Rahmat, Sarah, Norddin, Narina
• Format: Conference or Workshop Item
• Language: English
• Published: 2011
• Subjects: R Medicine (General)
• Online Access: http://irep.iium.edu.my/6546/1/AUDITORY_BRAINSTEM_RESPONSE_%28ABR%29.pdf; http://irep.iium.edu.my/6546/; http://www.ierasg.ifps.org.pl/index.php?s=news
• Institution: Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia

BACKGROUND: The auditory brainstem response (ABR) can be defined as a complex response that represents neural activity generated at several anatomical sites in response to particular types of external stimuli (Hood 1998). The ABR typically consists of up to seven waves; each numbered using the Roman numeric system to give Waves I–VII (Jewett & Williston 1971). The ABR is widely used in neurological testing to determine the presence or absence of a disorder and to determine the site of the lesion for retrocochlear pathologies such as VIII never tumors. One of the most challenging issues in ABR is to correctly identify the respective peaks. This further supported with the fact that large variation of ABR peaks can be observed in both normal and hearing loss subjects (Rowe, 1978). The task to identify ABR peaks therefore requires high clinical experience and knowledge since any misidentification of ABR peaks may lead to misinterpretation to the ABR results. The technique to train future audiologist in identifying ABR peaks is also crucial to ensure they able to master the appropriate skills to properly identify the ABR peaks. This study will investigate whether ABR simulator based training (SBT) is effective to train Audiology students to identify ABR peaks. AIM This study aimed to compare the score of student who underwent conventional ABR training with ABR SBT. METHOD This study was conducted among 25(2 male and 23 female) 3rd Year and 4th Year Bachelor of Audiology (Hons) students from International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). The 25 students were randomly assigned 50% to form an experimental group (SBT), with the remaining 50% forming a control group (conventional). Before the training sessions begin, a baseline score in determining ABR peaks was obtained from each subject from both groups by conducting a pre examination. Then, the experimental group was exposed to simulator based training, while the control group spent equal time on conventional training. Both training sessions took place at the same time, and the exposure time for both groups was set to 4 hours. Upon completion their respective training, both group will take the same pre-examination question to compare if there is any change of their exam score. RESULTS The mean differences of overall pre-post score in conventional group and SBT group was compared using RM ANOVA. Result shows that there was no significant difference between the pre-post score in both groups (p-value > 0.05). RM ANOVA was also used to compare the mean pre-post differences between both groups in answering difficult question. For this analysis, the result shows that there was significant difference in the pre-post score for students in both groups (p < 0.05). The conventional training group shows significantly higher score for difficult type of questions upon completion the training whereas student who undergone SBT training has significantly lower score upon completion the training. CONCLUSION In general, it can be concluded that we can use either conventional training or SBT as the mean of teaching Audiology students in analyzing ABR waveforms, as the results revealed there was no significant difference in overall pre and post score between students who underwent conventional training and students who undergo SBT. However conventional training is the best option to train student to determine difficult and tricky ABR waveform. Any further modifications that can be made to the SBT might yield a better outcome and need further exploration. Further research is also needed to investigate whether the combination of both techniques can produce a better outcome compare to a single training method.