OBJECTIVE: Model considerations suggest that the sound-induced inhibition underlying the vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) briefly reduces the variance of the electromyogram (EMG) from which the VEMP is derived. Although more difficult to investigate, this inhibitory modulation of the variance promises to be a specific measure of the inhibition, in that respect being superior to the VEMP itself. This study aimed to verify the theoretical predictions. METHODS: Archived data from 672 clinical VEMP investigations, comprising about 300,000 EMG records altogether, were pooled. Both the complete data pool and subsets of data representing VEMPs of varying degrees of distinctness were analyzed. The data were generally normalized so that the EMG had variance one. RESULTS: Regarding VEMP deflection p13, the data confirm the theoretical predictions. At the latency of deflection n23, however, an additional excitatory component, showing a maximal effect around 30 ms, appears to contribute. CONCLUSIONS: Studying the variance modulation may help to identify and characterize different components of the VEMP. In particular, it appears to be possible to distinguish between inhibition and excitation. SIGNIFICANCE: The variance modulation provides information not being available in the VEMP itself. Thus, studying this measure may significantly contribute to our understanding of the VEMP phenomenon.
OBJECTIVE: Model considerations suggest that the sound-induced inhibition underlying the vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) briefly reduces the variance of the electromyogram (EMG) from which the VEMP is derived. Although more difficult to investigate, this inhibitory modulation of the variance promises to be a specific measure of the inhibition, in that respect being superior to the VEMP itself. This study aimed to verify the theoretical predictions. METHODS: Archived data from 672 clinical VEMP investigations, comprising about 300,000 EMG records altogether, were pooled. Both the complete data pool and subsets of data representing VEMPs of varying degrees of distinctness were analyzed. The data were generally normalized so that the EMG had variance one. RESULTS: Regarding VEMP deflection p13, the data confirm the theoretical predictions. At the latency of deflection n23, however, an additional excitatory component, showing a maximal effect around 30 ms, appears to contribute. CONCLUSIONS: Studying the variance modulation may help to identify and characterize different components of the VEMP. In particular, it appears to be possible to distinguish between inhibition and excitation. SIGNIFICANCE: The variance modulation provides information not being available in the VEMP itself. Thus, studying this measure may significantly contribute to our understanding of the VEMP phenomenon.