2019
DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1613574
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Objective methods to measure vestibular evoked myogenic potential response saccular tuning curves

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A common issue with cVEMP threshold measurements is that the waveforms are analysed subjectively. In our previous work (Obeidat and Bell, 2019), there was significant variability between experienced raters in their subjective identification of cVEMP response thresholds, which is consistent with effects seen for ABR threshold estimation (Vidler and Parker 2004). Hence, we introduce an objective analytical approach using the Hotellings T squared (HT 2 ) test for the automated response detection of VEMPs (Obeidat and Bell, in press).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A common issue with cVEMP threshold measurements is that the waveforms are analysed subjectively. In our previous work (Obeidat and Bell, 2019), there was significant variability between experienced raters in their subjective identification of cVEMP response thresholds, which is consistent with effects seen for ABR threshold estimation (Vidler and Parker 2004). Hence, we introduce an objective analytical approach using the Hotellings T squared (HT 2 ) test for the automated response detection of VEMPs (Obeidat and Bell, in press).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…It can also be elicited with bone-conducted vibration, forehead taps or electrical stimulation and this can provide diagnostic information about the vestibulocollicreflex pathway (Rosengren, Welgampola, and Colebatch 2010). For more details on cVEMP, see (Rosengren, Welgampola, and Colebatch 2010) or Obeidat and Bell (2019). cVEMP responses to AC stimulation are primarily considered to be saccular in origin and it has been proposed that cVEMP response frequency will be altered in patients with MD, hence it may be sensitive to EH in the saccule.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fortunately, the latency of cVEMPs and oVEMPs is stable over stimulus level, gaze angle, SCM activation, and in a number of pathologies (Rosengren et al 2019). Obeidat and Bell (2019) reported the only previous cVEMP findings using F sp and a clinical approach to stimulation; the signal window that they used, 10 to 30 msec, was the same as what the present study found to yield the most robust cVEMP F sp values. The present study examined several different time windows to measure signal variance and identified time windows for cVEMP and oVEMP that worked well.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…If responses fall at a latency range outside of the signal-variance time window, then F sp values may be lowered and its performance comprised (Cone-Wesson et al 2002). Although two studies have applied F sp to cVEMPs (Obeidat & Bell 2018, 2019), only Obeidat and Bell (2019) reported a time window used to quantify signal variance, 10 to 30 msec, and there was no published evaluation of different signal windows to compare performance across different latency regions. One study applied F sp to oVEMPs and reported a signal time window of 30 to 50 msec, but the stimulation methods were different than those used clinically, and latencies were longer than typical onset responses (Parker-George et al 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation