Akustisch evozierte Potentiale (AEP)

Buettner, U. W.

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-07146-5_4

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 217 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Brainstem auditory-evoked potentials of different mammals are similar in configuration as a result of their similar anatomical structure. 16,17,21,22 The 4-5 waves that were found in the current study in llamas and alpacas were similar to those found in humans, 16,17 dogs, 20,23-25 cats, 21,26 cat-tle, 19 horses, 27 rabbits, and other species. 28 Waves IV and V were not clearly divided in any of the animals in the current study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…28 Waves IV and V were not clearly divided in any of the animals in the current study. The merging of waves IV and V was described as normal in humans 17 and cattle. 19 This observation is explained by similar stimulus conduction times of the lemniscus lateralis and colliculus caudalis, the structures that produce waves IV and V, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are of limited importance for clinical diagnosis. 17 Amplitudes of waves I and V were constant over all intensities and were included in the analyses. Wave V was of principal importance for the definition of a hearing level (Table 1).…”

Section: Brainstem Auditory-evoked Potential Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14,15 Objective assessment of auditory function may be measured with the brainstem auditory-evoked response test (BAER), also referred to as the brainstem auditory-evoked potential test (BAEP) or the auditory brainstem response test. 11,16,17 A computer-based system detects electrical activity in the cochlea and auditory pathways in the brain through small subdermal electrodes in these tests. 16 The response waveform consists of a series of peaks identified by Roman numerals: peak I is produced by the cochlea and cochlear nerve and later peaks are produced within the brain.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Brainstem Auditory-Evoked Potential Assessment of Auditory Function and Congenital Deafness in Llamas (Lama glama) and Alpacas (L pacos)

Gauly¹,

Vaughan²,

Hogreve³

et al. 2005

J Vet Int Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory function of llamas and alpacas was assessed objectively by means of brainstem auditory-evoked response audiometry (BAER) to establish the normal hearing range and to test the hypothesis of a correlation between blue eyes, white coat, and deafness. Sixty-three camelids were available for the study. Thirteen animals had blue irides; 1 animal had 1 blue and 1 pigmented iris. Wave latencies, amplitudes, and interpeak latencies were measured under general anesthetic. Click stimuli (dB [HL]) were delivered by an insert earphone. Four to five positive peaks could be detected; waves I, II, and V were reproducible; wave II appeared infrequently; and wave IV generally merged with wave V to form a complex. Peak latencies decreased and peak amplitudes increased as stimulus intensity increased. A hearing threshold level of 10-20 dB (HL) was proposed as the normal range in llamas and alpacas. None of the animals with pigmentation of coat and iris showed any degree of hearing impairment. Seven of the 10 blue-eyed, pure-white animals were bilaterally deaf and one of them was unilaterally deaf. However, 2 blue-eyed, white animals exhibited normal hearing ability. Three blue-eyed animals with pigmented coat did not show any hearing impairment. All white animals with normal iris pigmentation had normal auditory function; so did the 1 animal with 1 normal and 1 blue iris. The high frequency (78%) of bilaterally deaf animals with pure white coat and blue iris pigmentation supports the hypothesis of a correlation between pigmentation anomalies and congenital deafness in llamas and alpacas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Brainstem Auditory-evoked Potential Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Brainstem Auditory-Evoked Potential Assessment of Auditory Function and Congenital Deafness in Llamas (Lama glama) and Alpacas (L pacos)

Gauly¹,

Vaughan²,

Hogreve³

et al. 2005

J Vet Int Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, studies on auditory evoked potentials show the earliest cortical potential at approximately 30 to 50 msec after stimulation (e.g., Büttner, 1996), and the earliest cortical response to tactile stimulation of the fingers is also found at approximately 30 to 50 msec (e.g., Forss, Salmelin, & Hari, 1994;Claus, Linsenmeier, Sturm, & Engelhardt, 1987). Although such directly event-related cortical components are fairly wellknown, the specificity of the synchronization task suggests that additional, higher-level cognitive processes may be present.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Neuromagnetic Correlates of Sensorimotor Synchronization

Müller

Schmitz

Schnitzler

et al. 2000

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensorimotor synchronization tasks, in which subjects have to tap their finger in synchrony with an isochronous auditory click, typically reveal a synchronization error with the tap preceding the click by about 20 to 50 msec. Although extensive behavioral studies and a number of different explanatory accounts have located the cause of this so-called "negative asynchrony" on different levels of processing, the underlying mechanisms are still not completely understood. Almost nothing is known about the central processes, in particular, which sensory or motor events are synchronized by subjects. The present study examined central-level processing in synchronization tasks with magnetoencephalography (MEG). Eight subjects synchronized taps with their right index finger to an isochronous binaural pacing signal presented at an interstimulus interval of 800 msec. To gain information on central temporal coupling between "tap" and "click," evoked responses were averaged time-locked to the auditory signal and the tap onset. Tap-related responses could be explained with a three dipole model: One source, peaking at approximately 77 msec before tap onset, was localized in contralateral primary motor cortex (MI); the two other sources, peaking approximately at tap onset and 75 msec after tap onset, in contralateral primary somatosensory cortex (SI). Temporal coupling of these sources was compared in relation to different trigger points. The second SI source was equally well time-locked to the tap and to the auditory click. Furthermore, analysis of the time locking of this source activity as a function of the temporal order of tap and click showed that the second event - irrespective whether tap or click - was decisive in triggering the second SI source. This suggests that subjects use mainly sensory feedback in judging and evaluating whether they are "keeping time."

show abstract

Evozierte Potenziale (EP)

Stöhr

Kraus

2002

Einführung in Die Klinische Neurophysiologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Akustisch evozierte Potentiale (AEP)

Cited by 6 publications

References 217 publications

Brainstem Auditory-Evoked Potential Assessment of Auditory Function and Congenital Deafness in Llamas (Lama glama) and Alpacas (L pacos)

Brainstem Auditory-Evoked Potential Assessment of Auditory Function and Congenital Deafness in Llamas (Lama glama) and Alpacas (L pacos)

Neuromagnetic Correlates of Sensorimotor Synchronization

Evozierte Potenziale (EP)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About