The auditory brainstem response

Eggermont, Jos J.; Schmidt, P. H.

doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2059-0_2

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The ABR was obtained by averaging 500 trials to identical stimuli. Since Waves III and V of the ABR were the largest (Eggermont and Schmidt, 1990;Hall, 1992), the ABR threshold to a specific tone frequency was the smallest tone amplitude that evoked a discernable Wave III or V.…”

Section: Measuring Hearing Sensitivity By Auditory Brainstem Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Disrupted tonotopy of the auditory cortex in mice lacking M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Measuring Hearing Sensitivity By Auditory Brainstem Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Disrupted tonotopy of the auditory cortex in mice lacking M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For the auditory brainstem response, this is not too difficult as it represents the compound action potentials from successive generation sites in the auditory nerve and brainstem [Eggermont and Schmidt, 1990]. Thus, a significant correlation is expected between the lowest thresholds for neurons in each of these stations and the threshold of hearing [Liberman, 1978].…”

Section: Neural Activity and Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Neurophysiology of Auditory Perception: From Single Units to Evoked Potentials

Eggermont

Ponton²

2002

Audiol Neurotol

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evoked electric potential and magnetic field studies have the immense benefit that they can be conducted in awake, behaving humans and can be directly correlated with aspects of perception. As such, they are powerful objective indicators of perceptual properties. However, given a set of evoked potential and/or evoked field waveforms and their source locations, obtained for an exhaustive set of stimuli and stimulus contrasts, is it possible to determine blindly, i.e. predict, what the stimuli or stimulus contrasts were? If this can be done with some success, then a useful amount of information resides in scalp-recorded activity for, e.g., the study of auditory speech processing. In this review, we compare neural representations based on single-unit and evoked response activity for vowels and consonant-vowel phonemes with distinctions in formant glides and voice onset time. We conclude that temporal aspects of evoked responses can track some of the dominant response features present in single-unit activity. However, N₁ morphology does not reliably predict phonetic identification of stimuli varying in voice onset time, and the reported appearance of a double-peak onset response in aggregate recordings from the auditory cortex does not indicate a cortical correlate of the perception of voicelessness. This suggests that temporal aspects of single-unit population activity are likely not inclusive enough for representation of categorical perception boundaries. In contrast to population activity based on single-unit recording, the ability to accurately localize the sources of scalp-evoked activity is one of the bottlenecks in obtaining an accessible neurophysiological substrate of perception. Attaining this is one of the requisites to arrive at the prospect of blind determination of stimuli on the basis of evoked responses. At the current sophistication level of recording and analysis, evoked responses remain in the realm of extremely sensitive objective indicators of stimulus change or stimulus differences. As such, they are signs of perceptual activity, but not comprehensive representations thereof.

show abstract

“…If there was no response at any amplitude of the p3 wave, the definition was blindness. If the central conduction time (CCT) of peaks I-V was in the range of 3.83-4.27 ms, we defined the AEP as normal [ 15]. If the AEP response was at a low amplitude, or the CCT was delayed beyond 4.27 ms, we defined the AEP as delayed response.…”

Section: The Clinical Course and Follow-upmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decompressive Craniotomy for Acute Shaken/Impact Baby Syndrome

Cho¹,

Wang²,

Chi

1995

Pediatr Neurosurg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To estimate the surgical efficacy of decompressive craniotomy, 23 children under 2 years of age with acute shaken/impact baby syndrome were treated with medical or surgical methods over the past 6 years. Six children (group A) with lower intracranial pressure (ICP, less than 30 mm Hg) were treated with medical therapy, and 17 children with high ICP (more than 30 mm Hg) of which 7 children were treated with medical therapy (group B) and another 10 children (group C) were treated with decompressive craniotomy. Bifrontal craniotomy was performed on 5 children with generalized brain swelling. A large frontotemporoparietal craniotomy was performed on another 5 children with unilateral swelling. A mean of 32 ml of subdural hematoma was removed. The mean ICP was reduced by 80% in the craniotomy group, p < 0.05. Children in groups A and C performed better on the Children’s Outcome Scale than those in group B, p < 0.05. Mortality was significantly lower (0/10) in group C than in group B (3/7), p < 0.05. Hearing preservation was better in group C than in group B, p < 0.05. Bifrontal and frontotemporoparietal craniotomies may reduce mortality and morbidity for acute shaken/impact baby syndrome with high ICP. Patients with ICP less than 30 mm Hg may be treated successfully with medical therapy and patients with ICP more than 30 mm Hg are better treated with decompressive craniotomy.

show abstract

The auditory brainstem response

Cited by 12 publications

References 33 publications

Disrupted tonotopy of the auditory cortex in mice lacking M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor

Disrupted tonotopy of the auditory cortex in mice lacking M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor

The Neurophysiology of Auditory Perception: From Single Units to Evoked Potentials

Decompressive Craniotomy for Acute Shaken/Impact Baby Syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About