Comparison of tone burst versus logon stimulation for vestibular evoked myogenic potentials.

Ali Ozdek, Omer Bayır, Emel Cadallı Tatar, Mehmet Hakan Korkmaz
Author Information
  1. Ali Ozdek: Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ministry of Health Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.

Abstract

The following study has been carried out to compare the effectiveness of logon and tone burst acoustic stimulation to elicit vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) responses. The methods and the subjects include 31 healthy adult volunteers (62 ears) who were enrolled in this study. Two different acoustic stimuli, logon (L-VEMP) and tone burst (T-VEMP), were used to elicit VEMP responses in each subject. Bilateral recordings with simultaneous binaural acoustic stimulations were used during VEMP recordings. During the recording period, the subjects were in supine position with their head elevated. The results observed were that the response rate of p1n1 wave was 91.9% for L-VEMP and 88.7% for T-VEMP. The response rate of n2p2 wave was 80.6% for L-VEMP, and 75.8% for T-VEMP. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the latencies of p1, n1, n2 and p2, p1n1 and n2p2 interval, and p1n1 and n2p2 amplitude. The conclusion was that there was no difference between logon and tone burst stimulation with respect to VEMP response rates and VEMP parameters. Therefore, they are not superior to each other.

References

  1. Am J Audiol. 2004 Dec;13(2):135-43 [PMID: 15903139]
  2. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003 Nov;14(9):500-9; quiz 534-5 [PMID: 14708838]
  3. Otol Neurotol. 2004 Nov;25(6):977-80 [PMID: 15547429]
  4. Exp Brain Res. 1998 Apr;119(4):504-10 [PMID: 9588785]
  5. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004 Nov;124(9):1022-7 [PMID: 15513544]
  6. Acta Otolaryngol. 2008 Mar;128(3):314-7 [PMID: 18274919]
  7. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1976 May-Jun;85 SUPPL 28(3 Pt3):1-96 [PMID: 779583]
  8. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1994 Feb;57(2):190-7 [PMID: 8126503]
  9. Acta Otolaryngol. 1997 Jan;117(1):66-72 [PMID: 9039484]
  10. J Vestib Res. 2009;19(1-2):59-66 [PMID: 19893198]
  11. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007 Jul;127(7):700-4 [PMID: 17573565]
  12. Acta Otolaryngol. 1998 Jan;118(1):6-10 [PMID: 9504157]
  13. Neurology. 2005 May 24;64(10):1682-8 [PMID: 15911791]
  14. Otol Neurotol. 2001 Nov;22(6):796-802 [PMID: 11698798]
  15. Acta Otolaryngol. 2009 Nov;129(11):1206-11 [PMID: 19863312]
  16. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2001 Jan;28(1):41-3 [PMID: 11137362]
  17. Ear Hear. 2003 Jun;24(3):195-7 [PMID: 12799540]
  18. Ear Hear. 2006 Aug;27(4):376-81 [PMID: 16825887]
  19. Hear Res. 2004 May;191(1-2):59-66 [PMID: 15109705]
  20. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2007 Jan;71(1):29-33 [PMID: 16996145]
  21. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009 May;73(5):645-9 [PMID: 19168231]

MeSH Term

Acoustic Stimulation
Adolescent
Adult
Electromyography
Evoked Potentials, Auditory
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Reference Values
Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials
Vestibular Function Tests
Vestibule, Labyrinth
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0VEMPlogontoneburstacousticstimulationL-VEMPT-VEMPresponsep1n1n2p2studyelicitvestibularevokedmyogenicresponsessubjectsusedrecordingsratewaverespectfollowingcarriedcompareeffectivenesspotentialmethodsinclude31healthyadultvolunteers62earsenrolledTwodifferentstimulisubjectBilateralsimultaneousbinauralstimulationsrecordingperiodsupinepositionheadelevatedresultsobserved919%887%806%758%significantdifferencestwogroupslatenciesp1n1n2p2intervalamplitudeconclusiondifferenceratesparametersThereforesuperiorotherComparisonversuspotentials

Similar Articles

Cited By