Combined Effects of Recovery Period and Stimulus Intensity on the Human Auditory Evoked Vertex Response

1973 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Nelson ◽  
Frank M. Lassman

Averaged auditory evoked vertex responses were obtained from eight normal-hearing subjects in response to 32 monaural 1000-Hz tone bursts at 30 combinations of recovery period and stimulus intensity. From curves describing N 1 -P 2 peak-to-peak amplitudes, an equation was derived that describes the combined effects of recovery period and stimulus intensity on evoked response amplitude. The results show evoked response amplitude to be a dual function of both recovery period and stimulus intensity. At a given stimulus intensity, evoked response amplitude increases as a logarithmic function of recovery period. At a given recovery period, evoked response amplitude increases as a power function of stimulus intensity. The combined effects of recovery period and stimulus intensity produce equal ratio changes in the slope of the recovery function with equal ratio changes in stimulus intensity.

1974 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Mushin ◽  
Raymond Levy

SYNOPSISCortical somatosensory evoked responses to stimuli of various intensities were recorded in a group of patients with a diagnosis of ‘psychogenic pain’ and in three separate control groups. Differences emerged in the relationship between stimulus intensity and response amplitude. It is suggested that patients with psychogenic pain tended to deal with small stimuli in the way in which the other groups of patients dealt with large stimuli.


1969 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goesta Ekman ◽  
Marianne Frankenhaeuser ◽  
Birgitta Berglund ◽  
Michael Waszak

8 Ss were exposed to vibrotactile stimulation of 250 Hz, applied to the tip of the left index finger. Seven stimulus intensities, ranging from 26 to 48 db, were each combined with three stimulus durations, 50, 250, and 1200 msec. A magnitude-estimation technique with fixed standard was employed to obtain scale values of the apparent duration of each stimulus. The results indicate that apparent duration can be described as a logarithmic function of stimulus intensity. This conclusion is in line with our previous findings concerning apparent duration of electrical stimulation.


2009 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 420-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Carolina Braga Norte Esteves ◽  
Ana Helena Bannwart Dell' Aringa ◽  
Gustavo Viani Arruda ◽  
Alfredo Rafael Dell' Aringa ◽  
José Carlos Nardi

1968 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
MONTE BUCHSBAUM ◽  
JULIAN SILVERMAN

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (07) ◽  
pp. 452-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Cebulla ◽  
Claus Elberling

Background: A cochlear delay model has previously been proposed for the construction of a chirp stimulus in order to compensate for the temporal dispersion in the auditory periphery. The large intersubject variability in the model data suggests that a chirp constructed from the average model data will not be able to compensate equally well for the temporal dispersion in all normal-hearing subjects. For the recording of the auditory brain stem response (ABR), it has been suggested that the most efficient chirp for generating the largest response amplitude changes in duration with level, indicating that the delay model exhibits a latency change with frequency, which becomes larger at lower levels. Purpose: To investigate in normal-hearing subjects how the ABR varies in response to five different chirps and to study how the efficiency of each chirp changes with stimulus level. Research Design: A click and five chirps of different durations and constructed from the proposed delay model were designed with identical amplitude spectra. The six stimuli were used to record the ABR from 50 normal-hearing test subjects using a quasi-simultaneous stimulation technique at 50 and 30 dB nHL. The ABR recordings were evaluated by the peak-to-trough amplitude and the peak latency. Results: For the test group the following level effect was demonstrated: at 50 dB nHL the largest response amplitude was provided by a shorter chirp, whereas at 30 dB nHL the largest response amplitude was provided by a longer chirp. There is, however, large variability as to which of the five chirps generated the largest response in each individual subject, but at the two levels of stimulation, the best chirps were significantly correlated across the test group. All five chirps generated significantly larger ABRs than the click, but at 30 dB nHL the gain in response amplitude by using the chirps instead of the click was larger than at 50 dB nHL. Conclusions: A chirp that evokes the largest broadband ABRs in normal-hearing subjects changes in duration with level—that is, being relatively short at higher levels (50 dB nHL) and relatively long at lower levels and near the threshold. However, the changes in amplitude in response to chirps of different durations are not very large, and it is therefore uncertain whether the outcome from using such chirps actually would outweigh the instrumental complexity of implementation. It appears that the largest advantage of using the chirp over the click is found at the lower levels of stimulation.


1983 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
George M. Gerken ◽  
Adele D. Gunnarson ◽  
Craig M. Allen

Temporal summation effects were measured in normal-hearing and hearing impaired subjects using stimuli of different durations and temporal patterns. Threshold decreased with increasing stimulus duration for either single- or multiple-burst stimuli, but the hearing-impaired group showed smaller threshold shifts, which differed from those obtained with the normal-hearing group at the .0001 level of significance. Three models of temporal summation were evaluated: One model employed a time constant in an exponential function, one used a power function characterized by an exponent, and the last combined the properties of the exponential and power functions and was also characterized by an exponent. Estimates of the parameters that best described the data were obtained for each model. Data from the hearing-impaired subjects provided the most critical test of the models. The power function model and the combined model were both satisfactory with the range of stimulus durations used. but the exponential model failed to describe the data from the hearing-impaired subjects. It is suggested that there may not be a decrease in the time constant for temporal summation for subjects with sensorineural hearing-loss but that a factor related to the utilization of sensory input is altered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document