首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Audiology Research >Optimizing Stimulus Repetition Rate for Recording Ocular Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential Elicited by Air-Conduction Tone Bursts of 500 Hz
【2h】

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

机译:优化刺激重复率以记录500 Hz的空气传导音爆发引起的眼前庭诱发的肌源性电位

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:在一些报道了刺激相关参数对眼前庭诱发的肌源性电位(oVEMP)的影响的出版物中,重复率对oVEMP响应的影响在很大程度上尚待探索。研究使用了〜5.1 Hz的重复频率,这主要是因为oVEMP(如宫颈VEMP)应该在〜5 Hz时产生最佳响应,尽管缺乏实验证据来支持这一假设。 52个年龄在17-35岁之间的健康个体接受了以7种不同的重复频率(3.1、5.1、10.1、15.1、20.1、25.1和30.1 Hz)进行500 Hz音爆诱发的空气传导oVEMP。结果表明,随着重复率的提高,延迟时间延长,幅度降低的趋势。但是,仅在20.1 Hz时观察到更长的等待时间,在3.1和5.1 Hz时观察到更大的幅度(P <0.05)。 3.1 Hz和5.1 Hz的速率之间没有显着差异。然而,3.1 Hz产生的信噪比更差,需要更长的时间,因此效率低于5.1 Hz(P <0.05)。考虑到保持中上注视的物理行为,这还将导致较高的疲劳和刺激水平。因此,建议将5.1 Hz用于oVEMP的临床记录。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号