PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12(05): 223-232
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1745601
Original Article

Effect of Stimulus Intensity Level on Auditory Middle Latency Response Brain Maps in Human Adults

Denise A. Tucker
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina
,
Susan Dietrich
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina
,
David L. McPherson
Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
,
Mimi T. Salamat
Department of Communication Disorders, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
  als PDF herunterladen  Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Auditory middle latency response (AMLR) brain maps were obtained in 11 young adults with normal hearing. AMLR waveforms were elicited with monaural clicks presented at three stimulus intensity levels (50, 70, and 90 dB nHL). Recordings were made for right and left ear stimulus presentations. All recordings were obtained in an eyes open/awake status for each subject. Peak-to-peak amplitudes and absolute latencies of the AMLR Pa and Pb waveforms were measured at the Cz electrode site. Pa and Pb waveforms were present 100 percent of the time in response to the 90 dB nHL presentation. The prevalence of Pa and Pb to the 70 dB nHL presentation varied from 86 to 95 percent. The prevalence of Pa and Pb to the 50 dB nHL stimulus never reached 100 percent, ranging in prevalence from 77 to 68 percent. No significant ear effect was seen for amplitude or latency measures of Pa or Pb. AMLR brain maps of the voltage field distributions of Pa and Pb waveforms showed different topographic features. Scalp topography of the Pa waveform was altered by a reduction in stimulus intensity level. At 90 dB nHL, the Pa brain map showed a large positivity midline over the frontal and central scalp areas. At lower stimulus intensity levels, frontal positivity was reduced, and scalp negativity over occipital regions was increased. Pb scalp topography was also altered by a reduction in stimulus intensity level. Varying the stimulus intensity significantly altered Pa and Pb distributions of amplitude and latency measures. Pa and Pb distributions were skewed regardless of stimulus intensity.

Abbreviations: AMLR = auditory middle latency response, EEG = electroencephalography

Keywords

Auditory evoked responses - auditory middle latency response - stimulus intensity


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. März 2022

© 2001. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • American National Standards Institute. (1991). Criteria for Permissible Ambient Noise during Audiometric Testing. (ANSI S3.1–1991). New York: ANSI.
  • Buchwald JS, Rubinstein EH, Schwafel J, Strandburg RJ. (1991). Midlatency auditory evoked responses: differential effects of a cholinergic agonist and antagonist. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 80:303–309.
  • Buchwald JS, Hinman C, Norman RJ, Huang CM, Brown KA. (1981). Middle- and long-latency auditory evoked responses recorded from the vertex of normal and chronically lesioned cats. Brain Res 205:91–109.
  • Committee on Methods of Clinical Examination on Electroencephalography. (1958). Appendix: the ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 10:370–375.
  • Deiber MP, Ibanez V, Fischer C, Perrin F, Mauguiére F. (1988). Sequential mapping favours the hypothesis of distinct generators of Na and Pa middle latency auditory evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 71:187–197.
  • Dietrich S, Barry SJ, Parker DE. (1995). Middle latency auditory response in males who stutter. J Speech Hear Res 38:5–17.
  • Duffy FH, Burchfiel JL, Lomroso CT. (1979). Brain electrical activity mapping (BEAM): a method for extending the clinical utility of EEG and evoked potential data. Ann Neurol 5:309–321.
  • Erwin RJ, Buchwald JS. (1986a). Midlatency auditory evoked response: differential recovery cycle characteristics. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 64:417–423.
  • Erwin RJ, Buchwald JS. (1986b). Midlatency auditory evoked response: differential effects of sleep in humans. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 65:383–392.
  • Finitzo T, Pool KD. (1987). Brain electrical activity mapping: a future for audiologist or simply a future conflict? ASHA 29(6):21–25.
  • Geisler CD, Frishkopf LS, Rosenblith WA. (1958). Extracranial responses to acoustic clicks in man. Science 128:1210–1211.
  • Gorga MP, Neely ST. (1994). Stimulus calibration in auditory evoked potential measurements. In: Jacobson J, ed. Principles and Applications in Auditory Evoked Potentials. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 85–97.
  • Harrison JB, Woolf NJ, Buchwald JS. (1990). Cholinergic neurons of the feline pontomesencephalon. Brain Res 520:43–54.
  • Jacobson GP. (1994 ). Brain mapping of auditory evoked potentials. In: Jacobson J, ed. Principles and Applications in Auditory Evoked Potentials. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 517–540.
  • Jacobson GP, Grayson AS. (1988). The normal scalp topography of the middle latency auditory evoked potential Pa component following monaural click stimulation. Brain Topogr 1:29–36.
  • Jacobson GP, Newman GW. (1990). The decomposition of the middle latency auditory potential (MLAEP) Pa component into superficial and deep source contributions. Brain Topogr 2:229–236.
  • Jerger J. (1970). Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Arch Otol 92:311–324.
  • Kileny P, Paccioreti D, Wilson AF. (1987). Effects of cortical lesions on middle latency auditory evoked responses (MLR). Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 66:108–120.
  • Kraus N, McGee T. (1988). Color imaging of the human middle latency response. Ear Hear 9:159–167.
  • Kraus N, Smith DI, Reed NL, Stein LK, Cartee C. (1985). Auditory middle latency responses in children: effects of age and diagnostic category. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 62:343–351.
  • Kraus N, McGee T, Stein L. (1994). The auditory middle latency response. In: Jacobson J, ed. Principles and Applications in Auditory Evoked Potentials. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 155–178.
  • McGee T, Kraus N, Manfredi C. (1988). Toward a strategy for analyzing the auditory middle-latency response waveform. Audiology 27:119–130.
  • McPherson DL. (1996). Late potentials of the auditory system. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.
  • McPherson DL, Ballachanda BB. (1999). Middle and long latency auditory evoked potentials. In: Roeser R, ed. Audiologic Diagnosis. New York: Thieme, 13–21.
  • Nelson MD, Hall JW, Jacobson GP. (1997). Factors affecting the recordability of auditory evoked response component Pb (Pl). J Am Acad Audiol 8:89–99.
  • Picton TW, Hillyard SA, Krausz HI, Galambos R. (1974). Human auditory evoked potentials. I: Evaluation of components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 36:179–190.
  • Pynchon KA, Tucker DA, Ruth RA, Barrett KA, Herr DG. (1998). Area-under-the-curve measure of the auditory middle latency response (AMLR) from birth to early adulthood. Am J Audiol 7:45–49.
  • Tucker DA, Ruth RA. (1996). Effects of age, stimulus intensity level, and rate of stimulus presentation on the auditory middle latency response. J Am Acad Audiol 7:83–91.