Reference

References

The peer-reviewed papers and standard texts behind the claims made throughout this atlas. Citation numbers in the text refer to this list.

  1. Davis PA (1939). Effects of acoustic stimuli on the waking human brain. Journal of Neurophysiology, 2(6):494–499.
    An early description of the slow vertex response to sound — the obligatory cortical potential later formalised as the P1–N1–P2 complex.
  2. Davis H, Zerlin S (1966). Acoustic relations of the human vertex potential. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 39(1):109–116.
    Showed that vertex-potential amplitude grows with stimulus level — the basis for using the cortical response to estimate hearing threshold.
  3. Picton TW, Hillyard SA, Krausz HI, Galambos R (1974). Human auditory evoked potentials. I. Evaluation of components. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 36:179–190.
    The classic component analysis separating early (brainstem), middle and late (cortical) auditory evoked potentials by latency.
  4. Näätänen R, Picton T (1987). The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology, 24(4):375–425.
    The definitive review of the N1 component and its multiple generators in and around auditory cortex.
  5. Hyde M (1997). The N1 response and its applications. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 2(5):281–307.
    A clinical synthesis of the slow vertex (N1) response, its recording requirements and its use in objective threshold estimation.
  6. Lightfoot G, Kennedy V (2006). Cortical electric response audiometry hearing threshold estimation: accuracy, speed, and the effects of stimulus presentation features. Ear and Hearing, 27(5):443–456.
    Quantifies how close cortical thresholds sit to behavioural thresholds and how stimulus rate and rise time affect the response.
  7. Stapells DR (2009). Cortical event-related potentials to auditory stimuli. In: Katz J (ed.) Handbook of Clinical Audiology, 6th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
    Reference chapter on the obligatory cortical responses and their role in objective audiometry.
  8. Ostroff JM, Martin BA, Boothroyd A (1998). Cortical evoked response to acoustic change within a syllable. Ear and Hearing, 19(4):290–297.
    First description of the acoustic change complex (ACC) — a cortical response to a change within an ongoing sound.
  9. Martin BA, Boothroyd A (2000). Cortical, auditory, evoked potentials in response to changes of spectrum and amplitude. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(4):2155–2161.
    Showed the ACC is elicited by both spectral and intensity changes — the basis for using it as an index of suprathreshold discrimination.
  10. Martin BA, Tremblay KL, Korczak P (2008). Speech evoked potentials: from the laboratory to the clinic. Ear and Hearing, 29(3):285–313.
    Reviews how speech-token cortical responses bridge audibility testing and clinical hearing-aid validation.
  11. Golding M, Dillon H, Seymour J, Carter L (2009). The detection of adult cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) using an automated statistic and visual detection. International Journal of Audiology, 48(12):833–842.
    Validated an objective Hotelling's T² statistic against expert visual detection of the cortical response.
  12. Carter L, Golding M, Dillon H, Seymour J (2010). The detection of infant cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) using statistical and visual detection techniques. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21(5):347–356.
    Extended automated statistical detection to infants — the foundation of aided cortical assessment in babies.
  13. Van Dun B, Carter L, Dillon H (2012). Sensitivity of cortical auditory evoked potential detection for hearing-impaired infants in response to short speech sounds. Audiology Research, 2(1):e13.
    Underpins the HEARLab aided-CAEP protocol using /m/, /g/ and /t/ speech tokens to probe low-, mid- and high-frequency audibility.
  14. Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ (2002). A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation. Ear and Hearing, 23(6):532–539.
    Established P1 latency as a biomarker of central auditory maturation and the basis for a sensitive period for implantation.
  15. Sharma A, Campbell J, Cardon G (2015). Developmental and cross-modal plasticity in deafness: evidence from the P1 and N1 waveforms. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 95(2):135–144.
    Reviews the P1 maturational curve and cortical reorganisation after auditory deprivation.
  16. Rance G, Cone-Wesson B, Wunderlich J, Dowell R (2002). Speech perception and cortical event related potentials in children with auditory neuropathy. Ear and Hearing, 23(3):239–253.
    Showed that a present cortical response predicts speech-perception benefit in auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder, where the ABR is absent.
  17. Cone-Wesson B, Wunderlich J (2003). Auditory evoked potentials from the cortex: audiology applications. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, 11(5):372–377.
    A concise clinical overview of where cortical responses add value beyond the ABR.
  18. British Society of Audiology (2016). Practice Guidance: Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential (CAEP) Testing. British Society of Audiology, Reading, UK.
    National practice guidance on recording parameters, stimuli, state and response detection for clinical CAEP testing.
  19. Hall JW III (2007). New Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses. Pearson / Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
    Standard reference text covering the full family of auditory evoked responses, including the late cortical potentials.
  20. Picton TW (2011). Human Auditory Evoked Potentials. Plural Publishing, San Diego.
    Authoritative monograph on the generation, recording and interpretation of auditory evoked potentials.
A note on sourcing. Where a finding is long-established in audiology, this atlas cites the original describing work alongside standard reference texts. Clinical thresholds and criteria are conventional teaching values; individual laboratories and equipment may differ, and local normative data should always take precedence.