Middle- and long-latency auditory evoked potentials

Alain, Claude; Roye, Anja; Arnott, Stephen R.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-7020-5310-8.00009-0

Cited by 19 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 190 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This issue of matching particularly pertains to hearing level and age. Hearing level importantly influences auditory processing as measured by LAEPs [ 32 ]. Notably, many of the studies included here did not report sufficient data on participants’ hearing levels.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Auditory Evoked Potentials (AEPs) might be considered as a potential biomarker in the assessment of tinnitus severity [ 30 , 31 ]. AEPs can be defined as a series of electrical changes in the peripheral and central nervous system related to auditory processing [ 32 ]. AEPs are generally categorized in three classes according to their latency [ 33 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic review and meta-analysis of late auditory evoked potentials as a candidate biomarker in the assessment of tinnitus

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjective tinnitus, the perception of sound in the absence of any sound source, is routinely assessed using questionnaires. The subjective nature of these tools hampers objective evaluation of tinnitus presence, severity and treatment effects. Late auditory evoked potentials (LAEPs) might be considered as a potential biomarker for assessing tinnitus complaints. Using a multivariate meta-analytic model including data from twenty-one studies, we determined the LAEP components differing systematically between tinnitus patients and controls. Results from this model indicate that amplitude of the P300 component is lower in tinnitus patients (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.83, p < 0.01), while latency of this component is abnormally prolonged in this population (SMD = 0.97, p < 0.01). No other investigated LAEP components were found to differ between tinnitus and non-tinnitus subjects. Additional sensitivity analyses regarding differences in experimental conditions confirmed the robustness of these results. Differences in age and hearing levels between the two experimental groups might have a considerable impact on LAEP outcomes and should be carefully considered in future studies. Although we established consistent differences in the P300 component between tinnitus patients and controls, we could not identify any evidence that this component might covary with tinnitus severity. We conclude that out of several commonly assessed LAEP components, only the P300 can be considered as a potential biomarker for subjective tinnitus, although more research is needed to determine its relationship with subjective tinnitus measures. Future trials investigating experimental tinnitus therapies should consider including P300 measurements in the evaluation of treatment effect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review and meta-analysis of late auditory evoked potentials as a candidate biomarker in the assessment of tinnitus

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another important consideration when comparing late auditory evoked potentials between two groups is ensuring that hearing thresholds are similar, as hearing loss can impact both latency and amplitude measures, although the extent to which hearing loss impacts CAEP latencies and amplitudes has not been concretely established (Alain et al, 2013). Wall et al (1991) compared latencies and amplitudes for N1, P2, and P3 in a group of individuals with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss compared to a control group with normal hearing matched for age.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%