Click Polarity Inversion Effects Upon the Human Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential

Kevanishvili, Z. Sh.; Aphonchenko, V.

doi:10.3109/01050398109076174

Cited by 28 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, there was no polarity effect, although a trend can be noted. For wave I, rarefaction clicks tended to yield a shorter latency, a finding which agrees with results reported by Emerson et al (1982), Kevanishvili and Aphonchenko (1981), Lynn, Robinson, and Schwan (1985), and Ruth et al (1982). There was virtually no difference between rarefaction and condensation clicks for wave III which is consistent to the results of Lynn et al (1985) and Ruth et al (1982).…”

Section: Amplitude Ratio V/isupporting

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The interaction of stimulus rate and polarity effects on the auditory brainstem response

Ziegler¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) has been dominated by attempts to develop techniques to enhance the clarity of the ABR waveform and to define the parameters that separate normal from abnormal responses. While the effects of stimulus rate are clearly documented, the effects of stimulus polarity on the ABR are not. There may be an interaction of polarity and rate which accounts for the inconsistent results reported in the literature.This study examined the effect of stimulus rate and polarity for waves I, III, and V, on the ABR latency, amplitude, and amplitude ratio.Rarefaction and condensation clicks were delivered at rates of 11.l; 21.1, 41.1, and 81.1 clicks per second. Fourteen male subjects were used, each having normal hearing thresholds and normal middle ear function.The results from this investigation revealed no interaction of rate and polarity on the three waves under study.There was a significant rate effect but not a significant polarity effect for latency, amplitude, and amplitude ratio.These results reveal that the discrepant results in the literature are not due to the different stimulus rates.Therefore, further investigation on the effects of polarity is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Amplitude Ratio V/isupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Kevanishvili and Aphonchenko (1981) reported that latency was little affected by the polarity change. The .…”

Section: The Effects Of Stimulus Polarity On the Abrmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction of stimulus rate and polarity effects on the auditory brainstem response

Ziegler¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the ABR the available informa tion is incomplete. Most investigators used only C and R clicks (with duration times of 0.02 ms [Coats and Martin, 1977], 0.01 ms [Hughes et al, 1981], 0.1 ms [Stockard et al, 1979], 0.125 ms [Rosenhamer et al, 1978] or 0.120 ms [Kevanishvili and Alphonchenko, 1981]), giving very short stimulus phase shifts. In that way the possible effects on the response can submerge in the usual latency variability (or jitter) of the neural response; so they saw only a minimal (Stockard et al [1979]: 0.07 ms; Rosenhamer et al [1978]: 0.08 ms) or no significant effect upon the latency of waves I and III.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phase-Locking of the Auditory Brain Stem Response

Debruyne¹

1984

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing the auditory brain stem responses to several condensation and rarefaction stimuli, the effect of different stimulus phase shifts is studied. The phase-locking of waves I and III is demonstrated. For waves IV and V it is concluded that they cannot be regarded as a mere repetition of the preceding waves; they can show a distinct behavior as has been suggested earlier on other experimental grounds.

show abstract

“…Zum Einfluss von Sog-gegenüber Druckreizen auf das BAEP gibt es vielfache Untersuchungen; so wurde bereits 1975 von Ornitz und Walter [3] überdeutliche Unterschiede in den Latenzen der Potentiale insbesondere der Welle V bei einigen Normalpersonen berichtet. Andere Autoren wie Rosenhammer et al [4], Stockard et al [5], Kevanishvili und Aphonchenko [6], Tietze et al [7] Welle V zwischen rc-und cc-Stimulation. Maurer [9] stellte bei einer grossen Gruppe Normalhörender signi fikant kürzere Wellenlatenzen der mittels Sogreizen aus gelösten BAEP fest und beschrieb Konfigurationsabhän gigkeiten des IV/V-Komplexes.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Druck-, Sog- und alternierende Klickstimulation bei der BERA-Anwendung

Gobsch¹

1993

Otorhinolaryngol Nova

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bei der Messung von Hirnstammpotentialen (BAEP) an einer grossen Patientengruppe mit neurootologischen Fragestellungen waren auch normalhÖrende Patienten beteiligt. Die BAEP der Patienten mit NormalgehÖr zeigten teilweise grosse Unterschiede in den Latenzen und Amplituden der Wellen bei Klickreizung mit Unterdruck- gegenÜber Überdruckimpulsen. Die ermittelten Abweichungen von einem Teil der normalhÖrenden Patienten Überstiegen die bei normalhÖrenden Probanden typischen Werte fÜr die Latenzdifferenzen erheblich. AuffÁlligkeiten der BAEP bei Unter- bzw. Überdruckreizung kÖnnen bei der Verwendung einer alternierenden Stimulation unbeobachtet bleiben. Es scheint daher sinnvoll, primÄr mit getrennter Über- bzw. Unterdruckreizung zu arbeiten und nur im Falle einer starken Reizeinkopplung bei hohen Pegeln die MÖglichkeit der Kompensation der Artefakteinkopplung durch alternierende Stimulation zu nutzen.

show abstract

Click Polarity Inversion Effects Upon the Human Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential

Cited by 28 publications

References 13 publications

The interaction of stimulus rate and polarity effects on the auditory brainstem response

The interaction of stimulus rate and polarity effects on the auditory brainstem response

Phase-Locking of the Auditory Brain Stem Response

Druck-, Sog- und alternierende Klickstimulation bei der BERA-Anwendung

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About