Literature DB >> 30208403

Reliability of Measures of N1 Peak Amplitude of the Compound Action Potential in Younger and Older Adults.

Carolyn M McClaskey1, James W Dias1, Judy R Dubno1, Kelly C Harris1.   

Abstract

Purpose: Human auditory nerve (AN) activity estimated from the amplitude of the first prominent negative peak (N1) of the compound action potential (CAP) is typically quantified using either a peak-to-peak measurement or a baseline-corrected measurement. However, the reliability of these 2 common measurement techniques has not been evaluated but is often assumed to be relatively poor, especially for older adults. To address this question, the current study (a) compared test-retest reliability of these 2 methods and (b) tested the extent to which measurement type affected the relationship between N1 amplitude and experimental factors related to the stimulus (higher and lower intensity levels) and participants (younger and older adults). Method: Click-evoked CAPs were recorded in 24 younger (aged 18-30 years) and 20 older (aged 55-85 years) adults with clinically normal audiograms up to 3000 Hz. N1 peak amplitudes were estimated from peak-to-peak measurements (from N1 to P1) and baseline-corrected measurements for 2 stimulus levels (80 and 110 dB pSPL). Baseline-corrected measurements were made with 4 baseline windows. Each stimulus level was presented twice, and test-retest reliability of these 2 measures was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the extent to which age group and click level uniquely predicted N1 amplitude and whether the predictive relationships differed between N1 measurement techniques.
Results: Both peak-to-peak and baseline-corrected measurements of N1 amplitude were found to have good-to-excellent reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficient values > 0.60. As expected, N1 amplitudes were significantly larger for younger participants compared with older participants for both measurement types and were significantly larger in response to clicks presented at 110 dB pSPL than at 80 dB pSPL for both measurement types. Furthermore, the choice of baseline window had no significant effect on N1 amplitudes using the baseline-corrected method. Conclusions: Our results suggest that measurements of AN activity can be robustly and reliably recorded in both younger and older adults using either peak-to-peak or baseline-corrected measurements of the N1 of the CAP. Peak-to-peak measurements yield larger N1 response amplitudes and are the default measurement type for many clinical systems, whereas baseline-corrected measurements are computationally simpler. Furthermore, the relationships between AN activity and stimulus- and participant-related variables were not affected by measurement technique, which suggests that these relationships can be compared across studies using different techniques for measuring the CAP N1.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30208403      PMCID: PMC6195041          DOI: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-18-0097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  31 in total

1.  On high-pass filter artifacts (they're real) and baseline correction (it's a good idea) in ERP/ERMF analysis.

Authors:  Darren Tanner; James J S Norton; Kara Morgan-Short; Steven J Luck
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.390

2.  Single-trial time-frequency analysis of electrocortical signals: baseline correction and beyond.

Authors:  L Hu; P Xiao; Z G Zhang; A Mouraux; G D Iannetti
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-09-29       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  Auditory brainstem response latency in forward masking, a marker of sensory deficits in listeners with normal hearing thresholds.

Authors:  Golbarg Mehraei; Andreu Paredes Gallardo; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Torsten Dau
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Analysis of compound action potential responses to tone bursts in the human and guinea pig cochlea.

Authors:  J J Eggermont
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1976-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Contribution of auditory nerve fibers to compound action potential of the auditory nerve.

Authors:  Jérôme Bourien; Yong Tang; Charlène Batrel; Antoine Huet; Marc Lenoir; Sabine Ladrech; Gilles Desmadryl; Régis Nouvian; Jean-Luc Puel; Jing Wang
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Click- and chirp-evoked human compound action potentials.

Authors:  Mark Chertoff; Jeffery Lichtenhan; Marie Willis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Auditory Brainstem Response Altered in Humans With Noise Exposure Despite Normal Outer Hair Cell Function.

Authors:  Naomi F Bramhall; Dawn Konrad-Martin; Garnett P McMillan; Susan E Griest
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Recovery of the human compound action potential following prior stimulation.

Authors:  O D Murnane; B A Prieve; E M Relkin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Electrocochleography in auditory neuropathy.

Authors:  Rosamaria Santarelli; Edoardo Arslan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Predicting auditory nerve survival using the compound action potential.

Authors:  Brian R Earl; Mark E Chertoff
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  8 in total

1.  Afferent loss, GABA, and Central Gain in older adults: Associations with speech recognition in noise.

Authors:  Kelly C Harris; James W Dias; Carolyn M McClaskey; Jeffrey Rumschlag; James Prisciandaro; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 6.709

2.  Early auditory cortical processing predicts auditory speech in noise identification and lipreading.

Authors:  James W Dias; Carolyn M McClaskey; Kelly C Harris
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 3.054

3.  Evidence for Loss of Activity in Low-Spontaneous-Rate Auditory Nerve Fibers of Older Adults.

Authors:  Carolyn M McClaskey; James W Dias; Richard A Schmiedt; Judy R Dubno; Kelly C Harris
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-12

4.  Neural Presbyacusis in Humans Inferred from Age-Related Differences in Auditory Nerve Function and Structure.

Authors:  Kelly C Harris; Jayne B Ahlstrom; James W Dias; Lilyana B Kerouac; Carolyn M McClaskey; Judy R Dubno; Mark A Eckert
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-11-09       Impact factor: 6.709

5.  Age-related central gain with degraded neural synchrony in the auditory brainstem of mice and humans.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Rumschlag; Carolyn M McClaskey; James W Dias; Lilyana B Kerouac; Kenyaria V Noble; Clarisse Panganiban; Hainan Lang; Kelly C Harris
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 5.133

6.  Techniques for Obtaining High-quality Recordings in Electrocochleography.

Authors:  Michael J Simpson; Skyler G Jennings; Robert H Margolis
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2020-04-15

Review 7.  Translational and interdisciplinary insights into presbyacusis: A multidimensional disease.

Authors:  Mark A Eckert; Kelly C Harris; Hainan Lang; Morag A Lewis; Richard A Schmiedt; Bradley A Schulte; Karen P Steel; Kenneth I Vaden; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-10-31       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Short-Term Test-Retest Reliability of Electrically Evoked Cortical Auditory Potentials in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Meghan Pike; Leigh Biagio-de Jager; Talita le Roux; Louis M Hofmeyr
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 4.003

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.