4.6 Article

Ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials elicited from monaural versus binaural acoustic stimulations

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 120, 期 2, 页码 420-423

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.10.157

关键词

Ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential; Binaural stimulation; Monaural stimulation; Vestibulo-ocular reflex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study compared the ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (oVEMPs) that are elicited (recorded) in response to monaural and separately, simultaneous binaural acoustic stimulations. The optimal stimulation mode for oVEMPs was also determined. Methods: Twenty healthy volunteers (14 men and 6 women, aged from 22 to 33 years, mean 28 years) without any previous ear disorders were enrolled in this study. Each subject underwent oVEMP testing using monaural acoustic stimulation (Men-oVEMP) with different stimulus intensities, and with bilateral recording. On another day, the same volunteers underwent oVEMP testing using simultaneous binaural acoustic stimulation and bilateral recording (Bin-oVEMP). Results: With 95 dB nHL tone burst stimulation, the biphasic nl-pl waveforms were recorded with maximal amplitudes from the electrodes located below the eyes contralateral to the side of acoustic stimulation while the subject was gazing upward. Significant correlations were identified between Mon-oVEMPs and Bin-oVEMPs with respect to threshold, latencies and amplitude. However, no significant difference existed between Mon-oVEMPs and Bin-oVEMPs in terms of the response rate, threshold, latency or amplitude. Conclusions: The Bin-oVEMP test yields the same information as the Mon-oVEMP test, but the duration of recording in the former is shorter than the latter. Significance: The Bin-oVEMP test may be a more convenient screening tool for evaluating the crossed vestibulo-ocular reflex. (C) 2008 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据