ArticleExperimental brain research2016
Frequency and phase effects on cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMPs) to air-conducted sound.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Stimulus Frequency on Air-Conducted Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials.The journal of international advanced otology · 2021Article
- Vestibular Evoked Myographic Correlation.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2019Article
- Current diagnostic procedures for diagnosing vertigo and dizziness.GMS current topics in otorhinolaryngology, head and neck surgery · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Few previous studies of tuning using air-conducted (AC) stimuli and the cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential (cVEMP) have compensated for the effects of middle ear (ME) attenuation. Zhang et al. (Exp Brain Res 213:111-116, 2011a) who did allow for ME effects were able to show a secondary peak around 100 Hz for the ocular VEMP (oVEMP). Recently, it has become clear that the otolith afferents responsible for the cVEMP and oVEMP differ and thus the nature of tuning may be more related to the reflex studied determining which otolith receptors are activated rather than the properties of the stimulus. We wished to reinvestigate the tuning for the cVEMP using AC stimuli, to establish whether the low-frequency peak is specific for the oVEMP or a consequence of the stimulus modality itself. In response to recent evidence using a 500 Hz AC stimulus that there was no effect of stimulus phase, we also investigated whether phase (condensation or rarefaction) had an effect at any frequency. We measured corrected cVEMP amplitudes and latencies in response to stimuli between 50 and 1200 Hz in 10 normal volunteers using an AC stimulus adjusted for ME attenuation. We confirmed earlier reports of the similarity of the tuning for both the cVEMP and oVEMP reflexes but found no separate 100 Hz peak for the cVEMP. AC stimulus phase did not affect either amplitude or latency. Both the tuning pattern and the phase effects contrast with those previously reported for bone-conducted (BC) stimuli. Unlike BC stimulation, which shows tuning consistent with an action on the otolith membrane, AC stimuli are likely to act through a different mechanism, most likely directly at the hair cell level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.