Objective To establish reference intervals for cognitive potential P300 latency using tone burst stimuli.Methods This study involved 28 participants aged between 18 and 59 years. P300 recordings were performed using a two-channel device (Masbe, Contronic). Electrode placement was as follows: Fpz (ground electrode), Cz (active electrode), M1 and M2 (reference electrodes). Intensity corresponded to 80 dB HL and frequent and rare stimulus frequencies to 1,000Hz and 2,000Hz, respectively. Stimuli were delivered binaurally.Results Mean age of participants was 35 years. Average P300 latency was 305ms.Conclusion Maximum acceptable P300 latency values of 362.5ms (305 + 2SD 28.75) were determined for adults aged 18 to 59 years using the protocol described.
Introduction The auditory system consists of sensory structures and central connections. The evaluation of the auditory pathway at a central level can be performed through behavioral and electrophysiological tests, because they are complementary to each other and provide important information about comprehension. Objective To correlate the findings of speech brainstem-evoked response audiometry with the behavioral tests Random Gap Detection Test and Masking Level Difference in adults with hearing loss. Methods All patients were submitted to a basic audiological evaluation, to the aforementioned behavioral tests, and to an electrophysiological assessment, by means of click-evoked and speech-evoked brainstem response audiometry. Results There were no statistically significant values among the electrophysiological test and the behavioral tests. However, there was a significant correlation between the V and A waves, as well as the D and F waves, of the speech-evoked brainstem response audiometry peaks. Such correlations are positive, indicating that the increase of a variable implies an increase in another and vice versa. Conclusion It was possible to correlate the findings of the speech-evoked brainstem response audiometry with those of the behavioral tests Random Gap Detection and Masking Level Difference. However, there was no statistically significant correlation between them. This shows that the electrophysiological evaluation does not depend uniquely on the behavioral skills of temporal resolution and selective attention.
Purpose: to identify if there are differences in the findings of Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potencial for latency and amplitude in different ways of counting the rare stimulus, being mentally counting or marking on paper (without memorizing). Methods: this study was prospective and transversal. The sample consisted of convenience and comprised by 49 subjects, including 29 females and 20 males. The following procedures were performed: Visual inspection of the external auditory canal, pure tone audiometry, acoustic emittance measures and long latency auditory evoked potentials, which was performed twice, one after the other, with individuals paying attention to the rare stimulus, always starting counting mentally and after marking on a paper. Results: there were significant differences between the ears to the P1, P2 latencies and amplitude of N1 for the method of marking on paper and the amplitude of P2 in both methods but with all values within the range normality. In addition, a statistically significant difference was also evident when comparing genders, being found larger latency values of P2 and N2 for males in both counting methods of the rare stimuli. The amplitude of P1, P2 and P3 was lower in males in different ways to count, being in P2 the only difference in the method mentally counting. When comparing the methods, there was a statistically significant difference only to the latency of P2 which was higher values for the method of marking on paper. Conclusion: there were no differences for the latencies and amplitudes of the long latency potentials in comparison of the rare stimulus score (mentally counting and marking on paper) for almost all potentials except for the potential P2 regarding to amplitude and latency. Keywords: Evoked Potentials, Auditory; Hearing; Auditory Perception RESUMO Objetivo: identificar se existe diferença nos achados do Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Longa Latência em relação à latência e amplitude, em diferentes modos de contagem do estimulo raro, sendo contando mentalmente ou marcando no papel (sem memorizar). Métodos: esse estudo teve caráter prospectivo e transversal. A amostra foi composta por conveniência sendo constituída por 49 indivíduos, sendo 29 do gênero feminino e 20 do gênero masculino. Foram realizados os seguintes procedimentos: Inspeção Visual do Meato Acústico Externo, Audiometria Tonal Liminar, Medidas de Imitância Acústica e Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Longa Latência, o qual foi realizado duas vezes, uma após a outra, com os indivíduos atentando ao estímulo raro, começando sempre contando mentalmente e após marcando em um papel. Resultados: houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre as orelhas para as latências de P1, P2 e amplitude de N1 para o método de marcação no papel, da latência de N1 para o método de contagem mental dos estímulos raros, e da amplitude de P2 em ambos os métodos, porém com todos os valores dentro da faixa de normalidade. Além disso, a diferença estatisticamente significante também foi evidente na comparação entre os...
ResumoNo idoso, o processamento da informação auditiva diminui, o que ocasiona alterações de diferentes habilidades auditivas e dificulta a compreensão do que é ouvido.
Introduction The use of the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response (ABR) shows how the brainstem operates up to the subcortex in a more complex manner than when the click-evoked ABR is used. Objective To study the applicability of the speech-evoked ABR in adults with hearing loss. Methods The sample was composed of a study group of 11 subjects, with ages ranging between 18 and 59 years, and auditory thresholds within normal standards, with loss of up to 65 dB at high frequencies or up to moderately severe symmetric sensorineural hearing loss. The sample underwent a basic audiological assessment, as well as speech-evoked ABR and click-evoked ABR, in which waves I, III and V, and V, A, C, D, E, F were respectively marked. The electrophysiological assessments were performed using the SmartEP device (Intelligent Hearing Systems, Miami, FL, US). Results For the speech-evoked ABR, the reference values were used in the identification and analysis of the study group. Those values found for the study group were: V = 8.56; A = 10.97; C = 21.33; D = 29.51; E = 37.93; F = 46.96; and O = 55.97. In the comparison between groups, the study group presented an increase in latency only in wave C. Conclusion The speech-evoked ABR can be performed in subjects with up to moderately severe hearing loss, and the test proved to be appropriate, because, unlike the click-evoked ABR, the former does not suffer influence of peripheral hearing loss.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.