An ignoring task improves validity of cortical evoked response audiometry

NeuroReport

Volumn 21, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 709-715

  Ikeda, Kazunari ^a   Hayashi, Akiko ^a   Matsuda, Osamu ^a   Sekiguchi, Takahiro ^a  

^a TOKYO GAKUGEI UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Attention; Cortical evoked response audiometry; Ignoring task; N1 P2 response; Pure tone audiometry

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVOKED CORTICAL RESPONSE; EVOKED RESPONSE AUDIOMETRY; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SOUND INTENSITY; TASK PERFORMANCE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; BRAIN; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; HEALTH STATUS; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; TIME; VALIDATION STUDY; YOUNG ADULT;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ATTENTION; AUDIOMETRY, EVOKED RESPONSE; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; BRAIN; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77954027969     PISSN: 09594965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e32833b502a     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Hyde M. The N1 response and its applications. Audiol Neurootol 1997; 2:281-307.
2. Martin BA, Tremblay KL, Stapells DR. Principles and applications of cortical auditory evoked potentials. In: Burkard R, Eggermont J, Don M, editors. Auditory evoked potentials. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. pp. 482-507.
3. Naätänen R, Picton T. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987; 24:375-425.
4. Mulert C, Jäger L, Propp S, Karch S, Stö rmann S, Pogarell O, et al. Sound level dependence of the primary auditory cortex: simultaneous measurement with 61-channel EEG and fMRI. Neuroimage 2005; 28:49-58.
5. Beagley HA, Kellogg SE. A comparison of evoked response and subjective auditory thresholds. Int Audiol 1969; 8:345-353.
6. Rose DE, Keating LW, Hedgecock LD, Miller KE, Schreurs KK. A comparison of evoked response audiometry and routine clinical audiometry. Audiology 1972; 11:238-243.
7. Hone SW, Norman G, Keogh I, Kelly V. The use of cortical evoked response audiometry in the assessment of noise-induced hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 128:257-262.
8. Van Maanen A, Stapells DR. Comparison of multiple auditory steady-state responses (80 vs. 40 Hz) and slow cortical potentials for threshold estimation in hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 2005; 44:613-624.
9. Lightfoot G, Kennedy V. Cortical electric response audiometry hearing threshold estimation: accuracy, speed, and the effects of stimulus presentation features. Ear Hear 2006; 27:443-456.
10. Ross B, Lütkenhö ner B, Pantev C, Hoke M. Frequency-specific threshold determination with the CERAgram method: basic principle and retrospective evaluation of data. Audiol Neurootol 1999; 4:12-27.
11. Mendel MI, Hosick EC, Windman TR, Davis H, Hirsh SK, Dinges DF. Audiometric comparison of the middle and late components of the adult auditory evoked potentials awake and asleep. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1975; 38:27-33.
12. Prasher D, Mula M, Luxon L. Cortical evoked potential criteria in the objective assessment of auditory threshold: a comparison of noise induced hearing loss with Mé niè re's disease. J Laryngol Otol 1993; 107:780-786.
13. Tsu B, Wong LL, Wong EC. Accuracy of cortical evoked response audiometry in the identification of non-organic hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2002; 41:330-333.
14. Hyde M, Alberti P, Matsumoto N, Li Y-L. Auditory evoked potentials in audiometric assessment of compensation and medicolegal patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1986; 95:514-519.
15. Mast TE, Watson CS. Attention and auditory evoked responses to low-detectability signals. Percept Psychophys 1968; 4:237-240.
16. Japan Audiological Society. Recommendation for audiometric test methods. Audiology Japan 2003; 33:601-637. (in Japanese)
17. Kaf WA, Durrant JD, Sabo DL, Boston JR, Taubman LB, Kovacyk K. Validity and accuracy of electric response audiometry using the auditory steady-state response: evaluation in an empirical design. Int J Audiol 2006; 45:211-223.
18. Antinoro F, Skinner PH, Jones JJ. Relation between sound intensity and amplitude of the AER at different stimulus frequencies. J Acoust Soc Am 1969; 46:1433-1436.
19. Gross MM, Begleiter H, Tobin M, Kissin B. Auditory evoked response comparison during counting clicks and reading. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1965; 18:451-454.
20. Ikeda K, Sekiguchi T, Hayashi A. Concentrated pitch discrimination modulates auditory brainstem responses during contralateral noise exposure. Neuroreport 2010; 21:359-366.
21. De Boer J, Thornton AR. Effect of subject task on contralateral suppression of click evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res 2007; 233:117-123.
22. Coles RRA, Mason SM. The results of cortical electric response audiometry in medico-legal investigations. Br J Audiol 1984; 18:71-78.