Comparison of cervical and ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential responses between tone burst versus chirp stimulation

Aydın, Canset; Önay, Övsen; Tezcan, Elif İlkay; Aşkar, Zuhal; Özdek, Ali

doi:10.1007/s00405-021-06936-w

Cited by 10 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The patients were collected in a single group. The findings of healthy individuals were previously reported by Aydin et al 12 …”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 80%

Comparison of Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse and Tone Burst Stimulation in Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Acute Peripheral Vestibular System Pathologies

Aydin¹,

Erbek²

2023

Int Adv Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It is ascertained that the compressed high-intensity radar pulse (CHIRP) is an effective stimulus in auditory electrophysiology. This study aims to investigate whether Narrow Band Level Specific Claus Elberling Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse (NB LS CE-CHIRP) stimulus is an effective stimulus in the vestibular evoked myogenic potentials test. Methods: A case-control study was designed. Fifty-four healthy participants with no vertigo complaints and 50 patients diagnosed with acute peripheral vestibular pathology were enrolled in this study. Cervical and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potential tests (cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials) with 500 Hz tone burst and 500 Hz Narrow Band Level Specific CE-CHIRP stimulations were performed on all participants. In addition, cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials tests with 1000 Hz tone burst and 1000 Hz Narrow Band Level Specific CE-CHIRP were performed on 24 Meniere’s disease patients. P1 latency, N1 latency, amplitude, threshold, and the asymmetry ratio of responses were recorded. Results: In healthy participants, with CHIRP stimulus, shorter P1 latency ( P < .001), shorter N1 latency ( P < .001), and lower threshold ( P = .003) were obtained in the cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials test; shorter P1 latency ( P < .001), shorter N1 latency ( P < .001), higher amplitude ( P < .001), and lower threshold ( P < .001) were obtained in ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials test. In symptomatic ears of patients, with CHIRP stimulus, shorter P1 latency ( P < .001), shorter N1 latency ( P < .001), and lower threshold ( P = .013 in cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials; P = .015 in ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials) were obtained in cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials tests. In asymptomatic ears of patients, with CHIRP stimulus, shorter P1 latency ( P < .001) and shorter N1 latency ( P < .001) were obtained in the cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials test; shorter P1 latency ( P < .001), shorter N1 latency ( P < .001), higher amplitude ( P < .001), and lower threshold ( P = .006) were obtained in ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials test. Conclusion: Our results suggest that due to higher response rates, shorter latencies, higher amplitude, and lower threshold values, the Narr...

show abstract

“…The patients were collected in a single group. The findings of healthy individuals were previously reported by Aydin et al 12 …”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 80%

Comparison of Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse and Tone Burst Stimulation in Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Acute Peripheral Vestibular System Pathologies

Aydin¹,

Erbek²

2023

Int Adv Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In most studies, shorter P1 and N1 latency was obtained with the CHIRP stimulus in the cVEMP test. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Besides, Walther and Cebulla state that they found longer P1 and N1 latency with CHIRP stimulus. 22 Wang et al, Moinudeen et al, and Walther and Cebulla state that CHIRP stimuli produce higher amplitude values in the cVEMP test.…”

Section: Cvemps Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…CHIRP stimuli were compared with a 500 Hz tone burst. Bas [16][17][18]24,25 On the other hand, Walther and Cebulla indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in N1 and P1 latencies. 22 In all studies, higher N1-P1 wave amplitude values were reported in oVEMP.…”

Section: Ocular Vemp Results With Chirp Stimuli In Healthy Individualsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials with Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse Stimuli: A Literature Review

KUNTMAN,

PARABAKAN POLAT

2024

KBB ve BBC Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Because oVEMP are potentials with relatively small amplitudes, they can easily be influenced by noise from other facial muscles or nonstandardized measurement conditions (12). Refinements to the oVEMP assessment procedure have included variation of the polarity of the stimulus used, specific chirps, bursts, or clicks as stimulus, new locations for stimulation, and standardization of the body position during measurement, illustrating the need to improve standardization and reliability in oVEMP measurements (9,25,(30)(31)(32)(33)(34).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of Ocular Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials: Nasion Reference Montage as an Alternative to the Clinical Standard Montage

Scherer,

Beule,

Lütkenhöner

et al. 2024

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare two novel electrode montages for ocular, vestibular evoked myogenic potential using single-nasion reference electrodes with the clinical standard montage. Study Design Randomized crossover experiment. Setting Tertiary referral center. Participants Sixty healthy participants. Intervention Normal hearing and vestibular function were confirmed with an extensive test-battery. All ocular, vestibular evoked myogenic potential settings were measured with air-conducted tone bursts at 100-dB normal hearing level and a frequency of 500 Hz. Three electrode montages were measured in randomized order: the clinical standard montage (“S”), the nasion reference montage (“N”), and the nasion reference montage with a more lateral active electrode (“L”). Upgaze was standardized to 35 degrees. Main Outcome Measures Detection rate, latency of N1 and P1, peak-to-peak amplitude of N1 and P1, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), asymmetry ratio (AR), concordance of expert assessment, and reliability. Results All electrode montages showed detection rates greater than 90%. Latencies for “L” were shorter than for “S” and “N.” Amplitudes and SNR for “S” and “N” were higher than for “L,” whereas the values for “S” and “N” did not differ significantly. For AR, no significant differences between the montages were assessed. Concordance of experts ranged from 78% for “L” and 89.8% for “N.” All montages provided excellent day-to-day reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.9) for amplitudes and SNR. Conclusions Montage N could be a useful alternative to the clinical standard montage: although results are roughly equivalent, montage N requires one less electrode to do so.

show abstract

Comparison of cervical and ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potential responses between tone burst versus chirp stimulation

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Comparison of Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse and Tone Burst Stimulation in Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Acute Peripheral Vestibular System Pathologies

Comparison of Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse and Tone Burst Stimulation in Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials in Acute Peripheral Vestibular System Pathologies

Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials with Compressed High-Intensity Radar Pulse Stimuli: A Literature Review

Measurement of Ocular Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials: Nasion Reference Montage as an Alternative to the Clinical Standard Montage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About