Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
CHARACTERIZING MUSCLE ARTIFACT INTERFERENCE IN AEP
RECORDING
1
Electrophysiology Lab, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India
Publication date: 2015-09-30
Corresponding author
Sandeep Maruthy
Sandeep Maruthy, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India, e-mail: msandeepa@gmail.com
Sandeep Maruthy, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India, e-mail: msandeepa@gmail.com
J Hear Sci 2015;5(3):33-44
KEYWORDS
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.
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.
REFERENCES (40)
1.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. Year 2007 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detectionand Intervention Programs. Pediatrics, 2007; 120: 898–921.
2.
Kouni SN, Giannopoulos S, Ziavra N, Koutsojannis C. Brainstem auditory evoked potentials with the use of acoustic clicks and complex verbal sounds in young adults with learning disabilities. Am J Otolaryngol, 2013; 34: 646–51.
3.
Sohmer H, Kinarti R. Survey of attempts to use auditory evoked potentials to obtain an audiogram. Br J Audiol, 1984; 18: 237–44.
4.
Vander Werff KR, Brown CJ. Effect of audiometric configuration on threshold and suprathreshold auditory steady-state responses. Ear Hear, 2005; 26: 310–26.
5.
Lightfoot G, Kennedy V. Cortical electric response audiometry hearing threshold estimation: accuracy, speed, and the effects of stimulus presentation features. Ear Hear, 2006; 27: 443–56.
6.
Stapells DR. Threshold estimation by the tone evoked auditory brainstem response: a literature meta-analysis. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol, 2000; 24: 74–83.
7.
Werner LA, Folsom RC, Mancl LR. The relationship between auditory brainstem response and behavioral thresholds in normal hearing infants and adults. Hear Res, 1993; 68: 131–41.
8.
Lightfoot G, Stevens J. Effects of artefact rejection and Bayesian weighted averaging on the efficiency of recording the newborn ABR. Ear Hear, 2014; 35: 213–20.
9.
Trzaskowski B, Jedrzejczak WW, Pilka E, Kochanek K, Skarzynski H. Automatic removal of sonomotor waves from auditory brainstem responses. Comput Biol Med, 2013; 43: 524–32.
10.
Sanchez JT, Gans D. Effects of artifact rejection and bayesian weighting on the auditory brainstem response during quiet and active behavioral conditions. Am J Audiol, 2006; 15: 154–63.
11.
Chandrasekhar SS, Brackmann DE, Devgan KK. Utility of auditory brainstem response audiometry in diagnosis of acoustic neuromas. Am J Otol, 1995; 16: 63–7.
12.
Don M, Masuda A, Nelson R, Brackmann D. Successful detection of small acoustic tumors using the stacked derived-band auditory brain stem response amplitude. Am J Otol, 1997; 18: 608–21; discussion 682–5.
13.
Paludetti G, Ottaviani F, Gallai V, Tassoni A, Maurizi M. Auditory brainstem responses (ABR) in multiple sclerosis. Scand Audiol, 1985; 14: 27–34.
14.
Bozorg Grayeli A, Refass A, Smail M, Elgarem H, Kalamarides M, Bouccara D et al. Diagnostic value of auditory brainstem responses in cerebellopontine angle tumours. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh), 2008; 128: 1096–100.
15.
Cashman MZ, Rossman RN. Diagnostic features of the auditory brainstem response in identifying cerebellopontine angle tumours. Scand Audiol, 1983; 12: 35–41.
16.
Saberi A, Hatamian HR, Nemati S, Banan R. Hearing statement in multiple sclerosis: a case control study using auditory brainstem responses and otoacoustic emissions. Acta Med Iran, 2012; 50: 679–83.
17.
Anderson S, Skoe E, Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N. Neural timing is linked to speech perception in noise. J Neurosci, 2010; 30: 4922–6.
18.
Galbraith GC1, Threadgill MR, Hemsley J, Salour K, Songdej N, Ton J et al. Putative measure of peripheral and brainstem frequency-following in humans. Neurosci Lett, 2000; 292: 123–7.
19.
Maruthy S, Mannarukrishnaiah J. Effect of early onset otitis media on brainstem and cortical auditory processing. Behav Brain Funct, 2008; 4: 17.
20.
Kraus N, Anderson S. The effects of aging on auditory processing. Hear J, 2013; 66: 36.
21.
Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, Yi H-G, Kraus N. A neural basis of speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Ear Hear, 2011; 32: 750–7.
22.
Krishnan A, Gandour JT, Bidelman GM. Experience-dependent plasticity in pitch encoding: from brainstem to auditory cortex. NeuroReport. 2012;23: 498–502.
23.
Ganapathy MK, Narne VK, Kalaiah MK, Manjula P. Effect of pre-transition stimulus duration on acoustic change complex. Int J Audiol, 2013; 52: 350–9.
24.
Billings CJ, Tremblay KL, Miller CW. Aided cortical auditory evoked potentials in response to changes in hearing aid gain. Int J Audiol, 2011; 50: 459–67.
25.
Souza PE, Boike KT, Witherell K, Tremblay K. Prediction of speech recognition from audibility in older listeners with hearing loss: effects of age, amplification, and background noise. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007; 18: 54–65.
27.
Hood LJ. Clinical Applications of the Auditory Brainstem Response. 1st ed. San Diego: Singular Publishing; 1998.
28.
Jacobson JT. Principles and Applications in Auditory Evoked Potentials. Allyn and Bacon; 1994.
30.
Guerreiro CA, Ehrenberg BL. Brainstem auditory evoked response. Available from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/anp/v..., viewed 2015 Oct 12.
31.
Picton TW, Woods DL, Baribeau-Braun J, Healey TM. Evoked potential audiometry. J Otolaryngol, 1976; 6: 90–119.
32.
Sokolov Y, Kurtz I, Steinman A, Long G, Sokolova O. Integrity technology: enabling practical ABR Available from: http://www.vivosonic.com/en/su..., viewed 2014 Nov 24.
33.
Croft RJ, Barry RJ. Removal of ocular artifact from the EEG: a review. Neurophysiol Clin, 2000; 30: 5–19.
35.
Ferm I, Lightfoot G, Stevens J. Comparison of ABR response amplitude, test time, and estimation of hearing threshold using frequency specific chirp and tone pip stimuli in newborns. Int J Audiol, 2013; 52: 419–23.
36.
Duncan CC, Barry RJ, Connolly JF, Fischer C, Michie PT, Näätänen R et al. Event-related potentials in clinical research: guidelines for eliciting, recording, and quantifying mismatch negativity, P300, and N400. Clin Neurophysiol, 2009; 120: 1883–908.
37.
Picton TW, Bentin S, Berg P, Donchin E, Hillyard SA, Johnson R Jr et al. Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition: recording standards and publication criteria. Psychophysiology, 2000; 37: 127–52.
38.
Venkatesan S. Ethical guidelines for bio-behavioral research involving human subjects. All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangothri, Mysore; 2009. Available from: http://www.aiishmysore.in/en/p..., viewed 2015 Oct 13.
39.
WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects 2013. Available from: http://www.wma.net/en/30public..., viewed 2015 Oct 13.
40.
Jerger J. Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol, 1970; 92: 311–24.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
