Literature DB >> 3187380

Interaction of click polarity, stimulus level, and repetition rate on the auditory brainstem response.

R C Beattie1.   

Abstract

The present study investigated the interaction of click polarity (compression, rarefaction, alternating), repetition rate (2.3 and 9.2 clicks per second), and stimulus level (60, 75, and 90 dB nHL) on auditory brainstem responses. Two tracings (trials) were obtained for each condition using 45 normally hearing subjects. Although no systematic Wave I, III, or V latency or amplitude differences were observed among polarities or repetition rates at the three intensities, statistically significant differences were observed for the following conditions: (1) Wave III latency at 90 dB nHL was longer for the 9.2 repetition rate than for the 2.3 rate, and latencies for compression clicks were shorter than rarefaction clicks; (2) Wave V latencies at 75 dB nHL were longer with compression clicks than with rarefaction clicks; (3) mean Wave V latencies at 60 and 75 dB nHL were slightly longer for the 2.3 click rate than for the 9.2 rate; and (4) Wave V amplitudes at 90 dB nHL were larger for rarefaction clicks than for compression clicks. Because latency and amplitude differences were small and only found in a few conditions, the results indicate that polarity is not a significant variable in normally hearing subjects when using slow repetition rates (less than or equal to 10 clicks per second) at moderate to high intensities (60 to 90 dB nHL). Because repetition rates of less than 10 clicks per second increases examination time but does not improve wave morphology, rates of 10 per second or faster are recommended for gathering normative data. Absolute amplitudes showed considerable intersubject variability, especially for Waves I and III. Intrasubject variability (test-retest) also was substantial. These findings suggest that absolute amplitudes may be of little use for distinguishing normal from pathologic populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3187380     DOI: 10.3109/01050398809070698

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand Audiol        ISSN: 0105-0397


  9 in total

1.  Auditory responses in the barn owl's nucleus laminaris to clicks: impulse response and signal analysis of neurophonic potential.

Authors:  Hermann Wagner; Sandra Brill; Richard Kempter; Catherine E Carr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Could Tailored Chirp Stimuli Benefit Measurement of the Supra-threshold Auditory Brainstem Wave-I Response?

Authors:  Jessica de Boer; Alexander Hardy; Katrin Krumbholz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-08-19

Review 3.  Hidden Hearing Loss: A Disorder with Multiple Etiologies and Mechanisms.

Authors:  David C Kohrman; Guoqiang Wan; Luis Cassinotti; Gabriel Corfas
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 6.915

4.  Effects of noise exposure on young adults with normal audiograms I: Electrophysiology.

Authors:  Garreth Prendergast; Hannah Guest; Kevin J Munro; Karolina Kluk; Agnès Léger; Deborah A Hall; Michael G Heinz; Christopher J Plack
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Toward a Diagnostic Test for Hidden Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Christopher J Plack; Agnès Léger; Garreth Prendergast; Karolina Kluk; Hannah Guest; Kevin J Munro
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 3.293

6.  Hearing sensitivity and amplitude coding in bats are differentially shaped by echolocation calls and social calls.

Authors:  Ella Z Lattenkamp; Martina Nagy; Markus Drexl; Sonja C Vernes; Lutz Wiegrebe; Mirjam Knörnschild
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Speech Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response.

Authors:  Kaushlendra Kumar; Jayashree S Bhat; Pearl Edna D'Costa; Manav Srivastava; Mohan Kumar Kalaiah
Journal:  Audiol Res       Date:  2014-01-03

8.  A new method for analyzing auditory brain-stem response waveforms using a moving-minimum subtraction procedure of digitized analog recordings.

Authors:  Johan Källstrand; Tommy Lewander; Eva Baghdassarian; Sören Nielzén
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 2.570

9.  Polarity stimulation effects on brainstem auditory evoked potentials.

Authors:  Janaina Patricio de Lima; Kátia de Freitas Alvarenga; Tábata Pierini Foelkel; Camila Zotelli Monteiro; Raquel Sampaio Agostinho
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.