Literature DB >> 9547921

Multiple auditory steady-state responses (MASTER): stimulus and recording parameters.

M S John1, O G Lins, B L Boucher, T W Picton.   

Abstract

Steady-state responses evoked by simultaneously presented amplitude-modulated tones were measured by examining the spectral components in the recording that corresponded to the different modulation frequencies. When using modulation frequencies between 70 and 110 Hz and an intensity of 60 dB SPL, there were significant interactions between two stimuli when the carrier frequencies were closer than one half of an octave apart, with attenuation of the response to the lower carrier frequency. However, there were no significant decreases in response amplitude with four simultaneous stimuli provided the carrier frequencies differed by one octave or more. Higher intensities (70 dB SPL) resulted in greater interactions between the stimuli than when low intensities (35 dB SPL) were used. Modulation frequencies could be as closely spaced as 1.3 Hz without affecting the responses. Using broad-band noise as a carrier instead of a pure tone resulted in a significantly larger response when the stimuli were presented at the same sound pressure level. At modulation frequencies between 30 and 50 Hz, there were greater interactions between stimuli than at faster modulation frequencies. These results support the following recommendations for using multiple stimuli in evoked potential audiometry: (1) The multiple stimulus technique works well for steady state responses at frequencies between 70 and 110 Hz. (2) Up to four stimuli can be simultaneously presented to an ear without significant loss in amplitude of the response, provided the carrier frequencies are separated by an octave and the intensities are 60 dB SPL or less. (3) Bandpass noise might serve as a better carrier signal than pure tones.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9547921     DOI: 10.3109/00206099809072962

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiology        ISSN: 0020-6091


  23 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

2.  [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

3.  Using the auditory steady state response to record response amplitude curves. A possible fast objective method for diagnosing dead regions.

Authors:  Timothy Wilding; Colette McKay; Richard Baker; Terence Picton; Karolina Kluk
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

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.  Electrically evoked auditory steady state responses in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Michael Hofmann; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-12-22

6.  Validity of correction factors applied to auditory steady-state responses (ASSRs) in normal hearing adults in chartr EP system.

Authors:  Zahra Ghasemahmad; Saeid Farahani
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  Simultaneous acquisition of 40- and 80-Hz auditory steady-state responses for a direct comparison of response amplitude, residual noise and signal-to-noise ratio.

Authors:  Roland Mühler; Alexandra Petzke; Jesko L Verhey
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Physiological evidence for auditory modulation filterbanks: cortical responses to concurrent modulations.

Authors:  Juanjuan Xiang; David Poeppel; Jonathan Z Simon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Neural Correlates of the Binaural Masking Level Difference in Human Frequency-Following Responses.

Authors:  Christopher G Clinard; Sarah L Hodgson; Mary Ellen Scherer
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-11-28

10.  Aging alters the perception and physiological representation of frequency: evidence from human frequency-following response recordings.

Authors:  Christopher G Clinard; Kelly L Tremblay; Ananthanarayan R Krishnan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-11-26       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.