Limits...
Optimizing Stimulus Repetition Rate for Recording Ocular Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential Elicited by Air-Conduction Tone Bursts of 500 Hz.

Singh NK, Kadisonga P, Ashitha P - Audiol Res (2014)

Bottom Line: The results revealed a tendency for prolongation of latencies and reduction in amplitude with increasing repetition rate.However, significantly longer latencies were observed only for 20.1 Hz and larger amplitudes for 3.1 and 5.1 Hz (P<0.05).There was no significant difference between the rates of 3.1 Hz and 5.1 Hz.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing , Mysore, India.

ABSTRACT
Amidst several publications reporting the effects of stimulus-related parameters on ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potential (oVEMP), the effect of the repetition rate on oVEMP responses has largely gone unexplored. Studies have used a repetition rate of ~5.1 Hz mainly due to a presumption that oVEMP, like cervical VEMP, should produce best responses for ~5 Hz, although there is paucity of experimental evidence to support this hypothesis. 52 healthy individuals in the age range of 17-35 years underwent air-conduction oVEMP elicited by 500 Hz tone-bursts using seven different repetition rates (3.1, 5.1, 10.1, 15.1, 20.1, 25.1 and 30.1 Hz). The results revealed a tendency for prolongation of latencies and reduction in amplitude with increasing repetition rate. However, significantly longer latencies were observed only for 20.1 Hz and larger amplitudes for 3.1 and 5.1 Hz (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the rates of 3.1 Hz and 5.1 Hz. However 3.1 Hz produced poorer signal-to-noise ratio and required considerably longer time and thereby had lesser efficiency than 5.1 Hz (P<0.05). This would also result in higher fatigue and irritation levels considering the physical act of maintaining a supero-medial gaze. Thus the use of 5.1 Hz is recommended for clinical recording of oVEMP.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Mean and 95% confidence intervals of peak-to-peak amplitude across repetition rates from 3.1 to 30.1 Hz.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4627138&req=5

fig003: Mean and 95% confidence intervals of peak-to-peak amplitude across repetition rates from 3.1 to 30.1 Hz.

Mentions: The one-way repeated measures ANOVA was also done to investigate the effect of changing repetition rate on peak-to-peak amplitude. The results revealed a significant main effect of repetition rate on the peak-to-peak amplitude [F(4,412)=37.83, P<0.001]. The pair-wise comparison using the Bonferroni adjusted multiple comparisons revealed no significant difference between 3.1 and 5.1 Hz repetition rates (P>0.05). However, these two rates were significantly different (produced higher amplitudes) from all other rates (P<0.05). Apart from this, the Bonferroni adjusted multiple comparisons also revealed no significant difference between 15.1 Hz and 20.1 Hz (P>0.05). The repetition rate of 25.1 Hz and 30.1 Hz were not considered due to the absence of oVEMP in most of the individuals at these rates. Figure 3 shows the comparison of mean and 95% confidence intervals between repetition rates for peak-to-peak amplitude of oVEMP.


Optimizing Stimulus Repetition Rate for Recording Ocular Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential Elicited by Air-Conduction Tone Bursts of 500 Hz.

Singh NK, Kadisonga P, Ashitha P - Audiol Res (2014)

Mean and 95% confidence intervals of peak-to-peak amplitude across repetition rates from 3.1 to 30.1 Hz.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4627138&req=5

fig003: Mean and 95% confidence intervals of peak-to-peak amplitude across repetition rates from 3.1 to 30.1 Hz.
Mentions: The one-way repeated measures ANOVA was also done to investigate the effect of changing repetition rate on peak-to-peak amplitude. The results revealed a significant main effect of repetition rate on the peak-to-peak amplitude [F(4,412)=37.83, P<0.001]. The pair-wise comparison using the Bonferroni adjusted multiple comparisons revealed no significant difference between 3.1 and 5.1 Hz repetition rates (P>0.05). However, these two rates were significantly different (produced higher amplitudes) from all other rates (P<0.05). Apart from this, the Bonferroni adjusted multiple comparisons also revealed no significant difference between 15.1 Hz and 20.1 Hz (P>0.05). The repetition rate of 25.1 Hz and 30.1 Hz were not considered due to the absence of oVEMP in most of the individuals at these rates. Figure 3 shows the comparison of mean and 95% confidence intervals between repetition rates for peak-to-peak amplitude of oVEMP.

Bottom Line: The results revealed a tendency for prolongation of latencies and reduction in amplitude with increasing repetition rate.However, significantly longer latencies were observed only for 20.1 Hz and larger amplitudes for 3.1 and 5.1 Hz (P<0.05).There was no significant difference between the rates of 3.1 Hz and 5.1 Hz.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing , Mysore, India.

ABSTRACT
Amidst several publications reporting the effects of stimulus-related parameters on ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potential (oVEMP), the effect of the repetition rate on oVEMP responses has largely gone unexplored. Studies have used a repetition rate of ~5.1 Hz mainly due to a presumption that oVEMP, like cervical VEMP, should produce best responses for ~5 Hz, although there is paucity of experimental evidence to support this hypothesis. 52 healthy individuals in the age range of 17-35 years underwent air-conduction oVEMP elicited by 500 Hz tone-bursts using seven different repetition rates (3.1, 5.1, 10.1, 15.1, 20.1, 25.1 and 30.1 Hz). The results revealed a tendency for prolongation of latencies and reduction in amplitude with increasing repetition rate. However, significantly longer latencies were observed only for 20.1 Hz and larger amplitudes for 3.1 and 5.1 Hz (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the rates of 3.1 Hz and 5.1 Hz. However 3.1 Hz produced poorer signal-to-noise ratio and required considerably longer time and thereby had lesser efficiency than 5.1 Hz (P<0.05). This would also result in higher fatigue and irritation levels considering the physical act of maintaining a supero-medial gaze. Thus the use of 5.1 Hz is recommended for clinical recording of oVEMP.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus