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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanguebuche, Taissane Rodrigues, Silva, Luize Caroline Lima da, Peixe, Bruna Pias, Silva, Débora Durigon da, Garcia, Michele Vargas
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