Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30208403›Full record

ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2018

Reliability of Measures of N1 Peak Amplitude of the Compound Action Potential in Younger and Older Adults.

Carolyn M McClaskey, James W Dias, Judy R Dubno, Kelly C Harris

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Minimum Detectable Differences in Electrocochleography Measurements: Bayesian-Based Predictions.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Evidence for Loss of Activity in Low-Spontaneous-Rate Auditory Nerve Fibers of Older Adults.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2022
    Article
  11. Neural Presbyacusis in Humans Inferred from Age-Related Differences in Auditory Nerve Function and Structure.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Carolyn M McClaskeyMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
James W DiasMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
Judy R DubnoMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
Kelly C HarrisMedical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Funding

SPEECH UNDERSTANDING IN REALISTIC ENVIRONMENTSP50DC000422 · NIDCD · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI DUBNO, JUDY R · 1989 to 2025
$45.3M
SOUTH CAROLINA CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (SCTR)UL1RR029882 · NCRR · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI BRADY, KATHLEEN T. · 2009 to 2011
$10.1M
Interdisciplinary Research Training in Otolaryngology and Communication SciencesT32DC014435 · NIDCD · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI DUBNO, JUDY R · 2015 to 2024
$2.9M
Neural determinates of cortical plasticity with age and hearing lossR01DC017619 · NIDCD · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI HARRIS, KELLY C · 2018 to 2022
$2.0M
Neural determinents of sound encoding in the aging ear and brainR01DC014467 · NIDCD · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI HARRIS, KELLY C · 2015 to 2019
$1.9M
RENOVATION TO SUPPORT SENSORY NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCHC06RR014516 · NCRR · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI RAYMOND, JOHN R · 1999 to 1999
–
NCRR NIH HHS C06 RR014516NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR029882NIDCD NIH HHS P50 DC000422NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014467NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC017619NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC014435
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Human auditory nerve (AN) activity estimated from the amplitude of the first prominent negative peak (N1) of the compound action potential (CAP) is typically quantified using either a peak-to-peak measurement or a baseline-corrected measurement. However, the reliability of these 2 common measurement techniques has not been evaluated but is often assumed to be relatively poor, especially for older adults. To address this question, the current study (a) compared test-retest reliability of these 2 methods and (b) tested the extent to which measurement type affected the relationship between N1 amplitude and experimental factors related to the stimulus (higher and lower intensity levels) and participants (younger and older adults). Method: Click-evoked CAPs were recorded in 24 younger (aged 18-30 years) and 20 older (aged 55-85 years) adults with clinically normal audiograms up to 3000 Hz. N1 peak amplitudes were estimated from peak-to-peak measurements (from N1 to P1) and baseline-corrected measurements for 2 stimulus levels (80 and 110 dB pSPL). Baseline-corrected measurements were made with 4 baseline windows. Each stimulus level was presented twice, and test-retest reliability of these 2 measures was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the extent to which age group and click level uniquely predicted N1 amplitude and whether the predictive relationships differed between N1 measurement techniques. Results: Both peak-to-peak and baseline-corrected measurements of N1 amplitude were found to have good-to-excellent reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficient values > 0.60. As expected, N1 amplitudes were significantly larger for younger participants compared with older participants for both measurement types and were significantly larger in response to clicks presented at 110 dB pSPL than at 80 dB pSPL for both measurement types. Furthermore, the choice of baseline window had no significant effect on N1 amplitudes using the baseline-corrected method. Conclusions: Our results suggest that measurements of AN activity can be robustly and reliably recorded in both younger and older adults using either peak-to-peak or baseline-corrected measurements of the N1 of the CAP. Peak-to-peak measurements yield larger N1 response amplitudes and are the default measurement type for many clinical systems, whereas baseline-corrected measurements are computationally simpler. Furthermore, the relationships between AN activity and stimulus- and participant-related variables were not affected by measurement technique, which suggests that these relationships can be compared across studies using different techniques for measuring the CAP N1.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAge FactorsEvoked Potentials, AuditoryAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAudiometryFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30208403
PMCPMC6195041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.