HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sanchez, J. T. Articles by Gans, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sanchez, J. T. Articles by Gans, D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Effects of Artifact Rejection and Bayesian Weighting on the Auditory Brainstem Response During Quiet and Active Behavioral Conditions

Kent State University, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH

Contact author: Jason Tait Sanchez, Department of Neurobiology, E108, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, 4209 State Route 44, P.O. Box 95, Rootstown, OH 44272. E-mail: jtsanche{at}kent.edu.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of 2 noise reduction techniques on the auditory brainstem response (ABR).

METHOD: ABRs of 20 normal hearing adults were recorded during quiet and active behavioral conditions using 2 stimulus intensity levels. Wave V amplitudes and residual noise root-mean-square values were measured following the offline application of artifact rejection and Bayesian weighting. Repeated measures analysis of variance and Bonferroni adjusted pairwise t tests were utilized to evaluate significant main effects and interactions between the 2 noise reduction techniques.

RESULTS: ABRs recorded during the quiet behavioral condition resulted in minimal differences in wave V amplitude and noise reduction improvement, suggesting that the 2 techniques were equally effective under ideal recording situations. During the active behavioral condition, however, the techniques differed significantly in the ability to preserve the evoked potential and reduce noise. Consequently, strict artifact rejection levels resulted in an inherent underestimation of wave V amplitudes when compared with the Bayesian approach.

CONCLUSION: Artifact rejection had a detrimental effect on waveform morphology of the ABR. This could lead to difficulty in ABR interpretation when patients are active and ultimately result in diagnostic errors.

Key Words: artifact rejection, evoked potential, Bayesian weighting, auditory brainstem response

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?