CHARACTERIZING MUSCLE ARTIFACT INTERFERENCE IN AEP RECORDING
Journal Title: Journal of Hearing Science - Year 2015, Vol 5, Issue 3
Abstract
Background: It is well known that muscle artifacts negatively affect auditory evoked potential (AEP) recordings. However, the precise relation between the set of muscles involved and the specific AEP affected is not clear. Most audiologists believe that increase in the tension of any muscle in the body would affect all AEPs to the same extent, while some believe that only head and neck muscles affect AEPs. Logically, this relation will depend on the frequency characteristics of the muscle artifact. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no scientific documentation of the extent of interference created by various muscle responses on auditory brainstem responses (ABRs), middle latency responses (MLRs), and late latency responses (LLRs). The present study therefore sought to analyse the minimum artifact rejection threshold required for ABR, MLR, and LLR under various artifact-inducing conditions. Material and methods: The present study involved 40 individuals of age 17 to 24 years. For each participant, the effects of muscle artifacts on three popular, clinically relevant AEPs (ABR, MLR, and LLR) were determined. First, recording was done in a rest condition where participants were seated in a reclining chair and asked to close their eyes and maintain a relaxed position. Then the participants were asked to carry out one of the following tasks: blink their eyes continuously; spread their lips; or stiffen their neck, hand, or leg muscles maximally. While tensing each of these set of muscles, the minimum artifact rejection threshold (MART) was noted. Results: The results showed that each of the artifact-inducing conditions affected the three target AEPs differently. At rest, there was no significant difference in MART across the three AEPs, but artifact-inducing conditions produced different effects. Conclusions: Not all artifacts affect every AEP equally. For good AEP recordings one needs to have a clear understanding of various muscle potentials and their relative effect on each AEP.
Authors and Affiliations
Sandeep Maruthy, G. Nike Gnanateja, Resmitha Ramachandran, Priyanka Thuvassery
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP367795
- DOI -
- Views 43
- Downloads 0
BENIGN PAROXYSMAL POSITIONAL VERTIGO (BPPV): CASE REPORT WITH EPLEY MANOEUVER
Background: Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is a peripheral vestibular dysfunction which represents about 70% of vestibular pathology presented at ENT clinics. However, a variety of first treatment approaches...
COMPUTER-AIDED VOICE PITCH THERAPY IN AURALLY IMPAIRED STUDENTS
Background: The aim was to measure, evaluate, and improve voice pitch characteristics (measured on the basis of the average fundamental frequency, Fx), in students aged 10–12 who had substantial or severe hearing loss an...
COCHLEAR IMPLANTS AND TELEPHONE USE: PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IN ADULT PATIENTS
Background: Using the telephone for everyday communication and social interaction allows the profoundly deaf patient who uses a cochlear implant to increase their independence and self-esteem. Being able to use the telep...
SELF-REPORTED TINNITUS HANDICAP IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AUDITORY NEUROPATHY SPECTRUM DISORDER
Background: Tinnitus is one of the symptoms reported by individuals with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorders (ANSD). There are no studies examining the handicap caused by tinnitus in these cases. The study administere...
AUDIOMETRIC THRESHOLD MEASUREMENT IN CHILDREN WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY: PREFERRED RESPONSE MODE
BACKGROUND Pure tone audiometry is primary clinical tool in assessment of auditory disorders. Hence, its accuracy is essential in success of aural rehabilitation programs. However, studies have reported that push button...