Using Narrow Band CE-Chirps to Elicit Cervical Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the effects of Narrow band CE-Chirps (NB CE-Chirps) and tone bursts (TBs) at 500 Hz and 1000 Hz on the amplitudes and latencies in cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMPs).Design: Thirty-one healthy adult volunteers of varying ages were tested by air conduction at 95 dB nHL. Recording conditions were randomized for each participant and each modality was tested twice.Results: NB CE-Chirps showed larger corrected amplitudes than TBs at 500 Hz (p < 0.001) which were themselves larger than NB CE-Chirps and TBs at 1000 Hz (p < 0.001). In older volunteers, NB CE-Chirps 500 and 1000 Hz had significantly higher response rates than TBs 500 Hz (p = 0.039). A negative correlation was observed between the corrected amplitudes and the age of the participants regardless of the stimulus and the frequency studied. The p13 and n23 latencies were not correlated with the age of the subjects.Conclusions: NB CE-Chirps at 500 Hz improved the corrected amplitudes of waveforms in cVEMPs as a result of a better frequency specificity compared with TBs. In the elderly, eliciting cVEMPs at a frequency of 1000 Hz might not be necessary to improve response rates with NB CE-Chirps. Additional studies including a higher number of healthy participants and patients with vestibular disorders are required to confirm these observations.

Comparison of Multifrequency Narrow-Band CE-Chirp and Tone Burst Evoked Cervical Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials

“…On contrary, Reddy et al 15 revealed significantly larger cVEMP amplitude responses for 500 Hz NB CE-chirps than broadband chirps, clicks, and 500Hz tone bursts. In contrast to tone bursts, Mat et al 14 also reported similar findings for 500Hz and 1000Hz NB CE-chirp stimulations. Despite the fact that the study was the first of its kind to compare multifrequency NB CE chirps and tone bursts, it was restricted to only two frequencies.…”

“…12 Soon enough these NB CE-chirps have found their way into being effective stimuli in eliciting cVEMPs. 8,14,15 There has been no disagreement among the studies about the shorter latencies of cVEMPs for the chirp than tone bursts. 8,14,15,24 However, the amplitude of NB CE-chirp evoked VEMPs remain equivocal as several researchers have reported significantly higher amplitude responses than tone bursts 14,15,24 while others have rejected the claim.…”

“…12,13 In meantime, these chirp stimuli have been effective in eliciting VEMP responses as well. 8,14,15,16 In the study by Ocal et al 8 NB CE-chirps and tone bursts at 500Hz were found to elicit no significant variations in P1N1 amplitude, however, the latency was significantly shortened with NB CE-chirp. On contrary, Reddy et al 15 revealed significantly larger cVEMP amplitude responses for 500 Hz NB CE-chirps than broadband chirps, clicks, and 500Hz tone bursts.…”

“…Despite the fact that the study was the first of its kind to compare multifrequency NB CE chirps and tone bursts, it was restricted to only two frequencies. 14 However, a greater number of frequency-centered stimuli has often been suggested in the literature to compare and define the tuning of VEMP responses. 16,17,18 Furthermore, a broader age range of participants might have had a negative effect on the results of the study 14 as it is well-established that aging results in declined response rates and amplitudes of VEMPs.…”

“…14 However, a greater number of frequency-centered stimuli has often been suggested in the literature to compare and define the tuning of VEMP responses. 16,17,18 Furthermore, a broader age range of participants might have had a negative effect on the results of the study 14 as it is well-established that aging results in declined response rates and amplitudes of VEMPs. 17,19 Thus, the need for comparing multi-frequency tone bursts and NB CE-chirps evoked cVEMP responses in the homogenous age group is evident.…”