Fig. 3
From: The sensitivity of different methods for detecting abnormalities in auditory nerve function
Comparison of the differences in the AP-ECAP, FM-ECAP and EABR thresholds as well as the corresponding slopes of the AGF under the “normal” and under “abnormal” FSANs for the AP-ECAP and FM-ECAP. There were no significant differences among the AP-ECAP, FM-ECAP and EABR thresholds under the “normal” and under “abnormal” FSANs (a), and similarly, there were not significant differences in the slope of the AGF for the AP-ECAP and FM-ECAP (b). AP-ECAP alternating polarity electrically evoked compound action potential, FM-ECAP forward-masking subtraction electrically evoked compound action potential, EABR electrically evoked auditory brainstem response, AGF amplitude growth function, FSANs functional states of the auditory nerve, A: AP-ECAP, F: FM-ECAP, E: EABR, E1–E4: electrode 1–electrode 4, Kruskal–Wallis by ranks version of one-way ANOVA, followed by Dunn’s method. The data are represented by the mean ± SEM