Cargando…
Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation
Introduction Frequency-following response with speech stimulus (FFR-speech) is a subcortical potential that satisfactorily evaluates the processing of verbal information. However, there still are differences in the literature regarding its analysis and stimulation protocol. Objective To compare tw...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda
2019
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805238/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31649758 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1692160 |
_version_ | 1783461335826169856 |
---|---|
author | Sanguebuche, Taissane Rodrigues Silva, Luize Caroline Lima da Peixe, Bruna Pias Silva, Débora Durigon da Garcia, Michele Vargas |
author_facet | Sanguebuche, Taissane Rodrigues Silva, Luize Caroline Lima da Peixe, Bruna Pias Silva, Débora Durigon da Garcia, Michele Vargas |
author_sort | Sanguebuche, Taissane Rodrigues |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction Frequency-following response with speech stimulus (FFR-speech) is a subcortical potential that satisfactorily evaluates the processing of verbal information. However, there still are differences in the literature regarding its analysis and stimulation protocol. Objective To compare two stimulation protocols for the capture of FFR-speech, to identify the percentage of occurrence of the waves among them and to compare it with the specialized literature, as well as to describe the interpeaks of its waves. Method Considering the eligibility criteria, the sample consisted of 30 normal-hearing adults, with no complaints of speech comprehension. All of them were submitted to a basic audiological evaluation, to brainstem auditory evoked potential with click stimulus, and to FFR-speech. In the latter, 2 types of stimulation were performed, 3 series of 1,000 sweeps, and 2 series of 3,000 sweeps, for subsequent analysis of the resulting wave, in which we tried to mark the peak V followed by valleys A, C, D, E, F, and O. Results Differences in latency and interpeaks were not found between the protocols. In general, a higher occurrence of waves in the stimulation of 2 series of 3,000 sweeps was observed, but only the A valley presented a significant difference. When the values of the waves were compared with the literature, the V and A waves showed fewer occurrences in the present study. Conclusion The protocol of 2 series of 3,000 sweeps was better for FFR-speech in the studied equipment, considering the higher occurrence of waves, even though it is inferior to the specialized literature. Furthermore, it was possible to describe interpeak values and to observe no difference between the studied protocols |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6805238 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-68052382019-10-24 Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation Sanguebuche, Taissane Rodrigues Silva, Luize Caroline Lima da Peixe, Bruna Pias Silva, Débora Durigon da Garcia, Michele Vargas Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol Introduction Frequency-following response with speech stimulus (FFR-speech) is a subcortical potential that satisfactorily evaluates the processing of verbal information. However, there still are differences in the literature regarding its analysis and stimulation protocol. Objective To compare two stimulation protocols for the capture of FFR-speech, to identify the percentage of occurrence of the waves among them and to compare it with the specialized literature, as well as to describe the interpeaks of its waves. Method Considering the eligibility criteria, the sample consisted of 30 normal-hearing adults, with no complaints of speech comprehension. All of them were submitted to a basic audiological evaluation, to brainstem auditory evoked potential with click stimulus, and to FFR-speech. In the latter, 2 types of stimulation were performed, 3 series of 1,000 sweeps, and 2 series of 3,000 sweeps, for subsequent analysis of the resulting wave, in which we tried to mark the peak V followed by valleys A, C, D, E, F, and O. Results Differences in latency and interpeaks were not found between the protocols. In general, a higher occurrence of waves in the stimulation of 2 series of 3,000 sweeps was observed, but only the A valley presented a significant difference. When the values of the waves were compared with the literature, the V and A waves showed fewer occurrences in the present study. Conclusion The protocol of 2 series of 3,000 sweeps was better for FFR-speech in the studied equipment, considering the higher occurrence of waves, even though it is inferior to the specialized literature. Furthermore, it was possible to describe interpeak values and to observe no difference between the studied protocols Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda 2019-10 2019-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6805238/ /pubmed/31649758 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1692160 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Sanguebuche, Taissane Rodrigues Silva, Luize Caroline Lima da Peixe, Bruna Pias Silva, Débora Durigon da Garcia, Michele Vargas Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation |
title | Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation |
title_full | Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation |
title_fullStr | Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation |
title_full_unstemmed | Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation |
title_short | Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation |
title_sort | frequency-following response with speech stimulus: comparison between two methods of stimulation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6805238/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31649758 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1692160 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sanguebuchetaissanerodrigues frequencyfollowingresponsewithspeechstimuluscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofstimulation AT silvaluizecarolinelimada frequencyfollowingresponsewithspeechstimuluscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofstimulation AT peixebrunapias frequencyfollowingresponsewithspeechstimuluscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofstimulation AT silvadeboradurigonda frequencyfollowingresponsewithspeechstimuluscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofstimulation AT garciamichelevargas frequencyfollowingresponsewithspeechstimuluscomparisonbetweentwomethodsofstimulation |