Advanced search
1 file | 392.93 KB Add to list

Comparison of different electrode configurations for the oVEMP with bone-conducted vibration

Robby Vanspauwen, Floris Wuyts (UGent) , Stefanie Krijger (UGent) and Leen Maes (UGent)
(2017) EAR AND HEARING. 38(2). p.205-211
Author
Organization
Abstract
Objectives: This study was performed to compare three electrode configurations for the ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (oVEMPs)-"standard," "sternum," and "nose"-by making use of bone-conducted stimuli (at the level of Fz with a minishaker). In the second part, we compared the test-retest reliability of the standard and nose electrode configuration on the oVEMP parameters. Design: This study had a prospective design. Fourteen healthy subjects participated in the first part (4 males, 10 females; average age = 23.4 (SD = 2.6) years; age range 19.9 to 28.3 years) and second part (3 males, 11 females; average age = 22.7 (SD = 2.4) years; age range 20.0 to 28.0 years) of the study. OVEMPs were recorded making use of a hand-held bone conduction vibrator (minishaker). Tone bursts of 500 Hz (rise/fall time = 2 msec; plateau time = 2 msec; repetition rate = 5.1 Hz) were applied at a constant stimulus intensity level of 140 dB FL. Results: PART 1: The n10-p15 amplitude obtained with the standard electrode configuration (mean = 15.8 mu V; SD = 6.3 mu V) was significantly smaller than the amplitude measured with the nose (Z = -3.3; p = 0.001; mean = 35.0 mu V; SD = 19.1 mu V) and sternum (Z = -3.3; p = 0.001; mean = 27.1 mu V; SD = 12.2 mu V) electrode configuration. The p15 latency obtained with the nose electrode configuration (mean = 14.2 msec; SD = 0.54 msec) was significantly shorter than the p15 latency measured with the standard (Z = -3.08; p = 0.002) (mean = 14.9 msec; SD = 0.75 msec) and sternum (Z = -2.98; p = 0.003; mean = 15.4 msec; SD = 1.07 msec) electrode configuration. There were no differences between the n10 latencies of the three electrode configurations. The 95% prediction intervals (given by the mean +/- 1.96 * SD) for the different interocular ratio values were [-41.2; 41.2], [-37.2; 37.2], and [-25.9; 25.9] for standard, sternum, and nose electrode configurations, respectively. PART 2: Intraclass correlation (ICC) values calculated for the oVEMP parameters obtained with the standard electrode configuration showed fair to good reliability for the parameters n10-p15 amplitude (ICC = 0.51), n10 (ICC = 0.52), and p15 (ICC = 0.60) latencies. The ICC values obtained for the parameters acquired with the nose electrode configuration demonstrated a poor reliability for the n10 latency (ICC = 0.37), a fair to good reliability for the p15 latency (ICC = 0.47) and an excellent reliability for the n10-p15 amplitude (ICC = 0.85). Conclusions: This study showed the possible benefits from alternative electrode configurations for measuring bone-conducted-evoked oVEMPs in comparison with the standard electrode configuration. The nose configuration seems promising, but further research is required to justify clinical use of this placement.
Keywords
Electrode configuration, Ocular VEMP, Reliability, EVOKED MYOGENIC POTENTIALS, TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY, VESTIBULAR NEURITIS, GUINEA-PIG, VESTIBULOOCULAR REFLEX, EXTRAOCULAR POTENTIALS, AIR, SOUND, IRRIGATION, AFFERENTS

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 392.93 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Vanspauwen, Robby et al. “Comparison of Different Electrode Configurations for the oVEMP with Bone-conducted Vibration.” EAR AND HEARING 38.2 (2017): 205–211. Print.
APA
Vanspauwen, R., Wuyts, F., Krijger, S., & Maes, L. (2017). Comparison of different electrode configurations for the oVEMP with bone-conducted vibration. EAR AND HEARING, 38(2), 205–211.
Chicago author-date
Vanspauwen, Robby, Floris Wuyts, Stefanie Krijger, and Leen Maes. 2017. “Comparison of Different Electrode Configurations for the oVEMP with Bone-conducted Vibration.” Ear and Hearing 38 (2): 205–211.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Vanspauwen, Robby, Floris Wuyts, Stefanie Krijger, and Leen Maes. 2017. “Comparison of Different Electrode Configurations for the oVEMP with Bone-conducted Vibration.” Ear and Hearing 38 (2): 205–211.
Vancouver
1.
Vanspauwen R, Wuyts F, Krijger S, Maes L. Comparison of different electrode configurations for the oVEMP with bone-conducted vibration. EAR AND HEARING. 2017;38(2):205–11.
IEEE
[1]
R. Vanspauwen, F. Wuyts, S. Krijger, and L. Maes, “Comparison of different electrode configurations for the oVEMP with bone-conducted vibration,” EAR AND HEARING, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 205–211, 2017.
@article{8504469,
  abstract     = {Objectives: This study was performed to compare three electrode configurations for the ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (oVEMPs)-"standard," "sternum," and "nose"-by making use of bone-conducted stimuli (at the level of Fz with a minishaker). In the second part, we compared the test-retest reliability of the standard and nose electrode configuration on the oVEMP parameters. 
Design: This study had a prospective design. Fourteen healthy subjects participated in the first part (4 males, 10 females; average age = 23.4 (SD = 2.6) years; age range 19.9 to 28.3 years) and second part (3 males, 11 females; average age = 22.7 (SD = 2.4) years; age range 20.0 to 28.0 years) of the study. OVEMPs were recorded making use of a hand-held bone conduction vibrator (minishaker). Tone bursts of 500 Hz (rise/fall time = 2 msec; plateau time = 2 msec; repetition rate = 5.1 Hz) were applied at a constant stimulus intensity level of 140 dB FL. 
Results: PART 1: The n10-p15 amplitude obtained with the standard electrode configuration (mean = 15.8 mu V; SD = 6.3 mu V) was significantly smaller than the amplitude measured with the nose (Z = -3.3; p = 0.001; mean = 35.0 mu V; SD = 19.1 mu V) and sternum (Z = -3.3; p = 0.001; mean = 27.1 mu V; SD = 12.2 mu V) electrode configuration. The p15 latency obtained with the nose electrode configuration (mean = 14.2 msec; SD = 0.54 msec) was significantly shorter than the p15 latency measured with the standard (Z = -3.08; p = 0.002) (mean = 14.9 msec; SD = 0.75 msec) and sternum (Z = -2.98; p = 0.003; mean = 15.4 msec; SD = 1.07 msec) electrode configuration. There were no differences between the n10 latencies of the three electrode configurations. The 95% prediction intervals (given by the mean +/- 1.96 * SD) for the different interocular ratio values were [-41.2; 41.2], [-37.2; 37.2], and [-25.9; 25.9] for standard, sternum, and nose electrode configurations, respectively. PART 2: Intraclass correlation (ICC) values calculated for the oVEMP parameters obtained with the standard electrode configuration showed fair to good reliability for the parameters n10-p15 amplitude (ICC = 0.51), n10 (ICC = 0.52), and p15 (ICC = 0.60) latencies. The ICC values obtained for the parameters acquired with the nose electrode configuration demonstrated a poor reliability for the n10 latency (ICC = 0.37), a fair to good reliability for the p15 latency (ICC = 0.47) and an excellent reliability for the n10-p15 amplitude (ICC = 0.85). 
Conclusions: This study showed the possible benefits from alternative electrode configurations for measuring bone-conducted-evoked oVEMPs in comparison with the standard electrode configuration. The nose configuration seems promising, but further research is required to justify clinical use of this placement.},
  author       = {Vanspauwen, Robby and Wuyts, Floris and Krijger, Stefanie and Maes, Leen},
  issn         = {0196-0202},
  journal      = {EAR AND HEARING},
  keywords     = {Electrode configuration,Ocular VEMP,Reliability,EVOKED MYOGENIC POTENTIALS,TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY,VESTIBULAR NEURITIS,GUINEA-PIG,VESTIBULOOCULAR REFLEX,EXTRAOCULAR POTENTIALS,AIR,SOUND,IRRIGATION,AFFERENTS},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {205--211},
  title        = {Comparison of different electrode configurations for the oVEMP with bone-conducted vibration},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000000372},
  volume       = {38},
  year         = {2017},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: