Literature DB >> 1769924

Auditory evoked cortical magnetic field (M100-M200) measurements in tinnitus and normal groups.

G P Jacobson1, B K Ahmad, J Moran, C W Newman, N Tepley, J Wharton.   

Abstract

Recently, Hoke et al. (1989) and Pantev et al. (1989) demonstrated that the auditory evoked cortical magnetic field (AECMF) M100 component was larger, and M200 was smaller and occurred later in subjects with unilateral tinnitus compared with normal subjects. These group amplitude differences resulted in an M200/M100 amplitude ratio that was smaller for the subjects with tinnitus. The purposes of the present investigation were to: 1) extend the observations of Hoke et al. (1989), and, 2) determine whether contralateral AECMF differences existed following stimulation of the non-tinnitus and tinnitus ears of patients with tinnitus. Neuromagnetic AECMF recordings were recorded from 25 young normal hearing and 14 patients with unilateral tinnitus and hearing loss. The results failed to support the findings of Hoke et al. (1989). Specifically, there is no evidence suggesting that the M100 amplitude is larger, the M200 latency later, or, the M200/M100 amplitude ratios smaller, when the two samples are compared. Additionally, there were no differences in the amplitudes or latencies of M100 or M200 when results from stimulation of the tinnitus and non-tinnitus ears of tinnitus subjects were compared.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1769924     DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(91)90152-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  12 in total

Review 1.  Identifying tinnitus subgroups with cluster analysis.

Authors:  Richard Tyler; Claudia Coelho; Pan Tao; Haihong Ji; William Noble; Anne Gehringer; Stephanie Gogel
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 1.493

Review 2.  Underlying mechanisms of tinnitus: review and clinical implications.

Authors:  James A Henry; Larry E Roberts; Donald M Caspary; Sarah M Theodoroff; Richard J Salvi
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.664

Review 3.  Neural mechanisms of tinnitus.

Authors:  T Lenarz; C Schreiner; R L Snyder; A Ernst
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Evidence for multiple generators in evoked responses using finite difference field mapping: auditory evoked fields.

Authors:  J E Moran; N Tepley; G P Jacobson; G L Barkley
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 3.020

5.  MEG in the macaque monkey and human: distinguishing cortical fields in space and time.

Authors:  Johanna M Zumer; Srikantan S Nagarajan; Leah A Krubitzer; Zhao Zhu; Robert S Turner; Elizabeth A Disbrow
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Magnetoencephalographic Abnormalities in Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: A Case Report.

Authors:  Juha Wilenius; Jyrki P Mäkelä; Jukka Lyytinen; Anders Paetau; Maarit Palomäki; Eero Pekkonen
Journal:  Case Rep Neurol       Date:  2010-10-11

7.  The auditory midbrain of people with tinnitus: abnormal sound-evoked activity revisited.

Authors:  Jennifer R Melcher; Robert A Levine; Christopher Bergevin; Barbara Norris
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-08-20       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Is the effect of tinnitus on auditory steady-state response amplitude mediated by attention?

Authors:  Eugen Diesch; Martin Andermann; Andre Rupp
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2012-05-21

9.  Tinnitus perception and distress is related to abnormal spontaneous brain activity as measured by magnetoencephalography.

Authors:  Nathan Weisz; Stephan Moratti; Marcus Meinzer; Katalin Dohrmann; Thomas Elbert
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2005-06-28       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Auditory evoked magnetic fields in individuals with tinnitus.

Authors:  Magdalena Sereda; Peyman Adjamian; Mark Edmondson-Jones; Alan R Palmer; Deborah A Hall
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.