Literature DB >> 12474125

[Amplitude modulation following responses in audiological diagnostics].

J Pethe1, R Mühler, H von Specht.   

Abstract

The registration of brainstem potentials currently represents one of the most common methods in objective audiological diagnostics. However, regardless of their use, they are still known to possess important disadvantages, such as low specificity and validity in the lower frequency range due to broadband stimuli, or uncertainties due to the need for subjective evaluation. One potential solution to these problems could involve the registration of amplitude modulation following responses (AMFR). These potentials are being discussed much more regularly within the anglo-american literature due to their known frequency specificity within the high frequency range (resulting from a very narrow frequency band of stimulation), and also their ability to permit assessment of the hearing threshold at lower frequencies. Another additional advantage of AMFR results from the simple statistical verification of its presence.Extensive studies on the influence of both stimulating and recording parameters have also shown that the registration of AMFR could prove to be a very promising audiological tool, with past interest being focussed primarily on the optimal modulation frequency, the influence of vigilance of the generation of potentials, and the precise assessment of an objective threshold.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12474125     DOI: 10.1007/s00106-002-0710-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HNO        ISSN: 0017-6192            Impact factor:   1.284


  8 in total

1.  [Auditory steady-state response. On the threshold of clinical usage?].

Authors:  R Mühler
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 2.  [Diagnostics of the cochlear amplifier by means of DPOAE growth functions].

Authors:  T Janssen
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  [On the terminology of auditory steady-state responses. What differentiates steady-state and transient potentials?].

Authors:  R Mühler
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.284

4.  [Audiometric thresholds estimated by auditory steady-state responses. Influence of EEG amplitude and test duration on accuracy].

Authors:  R Mühler; T Rahne
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.284

5.  [The problem of hearing threshold assessment in objective audiometry].

Authors:  U Hoppe
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.284

6.  [Acoustic evoked potentials. The nomenclature in terminological transition].

Authors:  I Baljić; M Walger
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.284

7.  Definitive locoregional therapy (LRT) versus bridging LRT and liver transplantation with wait-and-not-treat approach for very early stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Peiman Habibollahi; Stephen Hunt; Therese Bitterman; Terence P Gade; Michael C Soulen; Gregory Nadolski
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.630

8.  [Steady-state responses of the auditory system: a comparison of different methods].

Authors:  S Liebler; S Hoth; P K Plinkert
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.284

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.