ORL
ro
audiologie
Function input-output
Sine generator
rograer
PATIENT
tnc
e it e it
tnc
ronooe
ronooe
E
c
-p
tnc n ction ti
Figura 2. Schematic diagram apparatus to SMR
tiuu intnit
lowing stimuli are different and changed reduced the AEP registrations to CAEP
Figure 3. Function input (stimulus inten-
accidentally. This procedure is under taking account that the SMR is a con-
sity) - output (latency N1, P2 in CAEP
control of a random impulse genera- scious action and it could not be elicited
and reaction time in SMR)
tor. The frequency and intensity of the below the cortical regions of the hearing
stimuli can be settled adequately.The organ. Both the examinations were car-
chronoscope is switched on by impulse ried out at sensation levels (SL) from 20 to served in 16 of them (80%) elongation
from the programmer together with the 100 dB in 20 dB SL steps. of SMR time and normal responses in
start of acoustic stimulus. The stopping potentials N1, P2 in 18 ( 90%) of cases.
of chronoscope is brought about by me- Results Intrabrainstem disturbances were in
chanical (button pressing) and electro- In normal hearing subjects the re- 90% of cases.
physiological ( thumb muscles electric sults of SMR measurements and AEP
activity) switches. The AEP examina- registration (mean values) are shown Conclusions
tions were performed using adequate in table 1 , an example of subject’s ex- The SMR time using the electrophys-
Racia-Alvair (France) and our construc- aminations is presented in fig.3. iological switch is shorter than the
tion apparatuses. At the beginning of Abbreviations used in them are as one with the mechanical switch. The
these investigations the following re- follows: TN1= latency of CAEP peak change over from the afferent part of
sponses were evaluated: ABR (auditory N1, TP2 = latency of CAEP peak P2, the acoustic reflex arc to the associa-
brainstem responses), MLR ( middle RTmech = reaction time for mechan- tion and efferent ones occurs prob-
latency responses ), and CAEP (cortical ical switch, RTel-ph= reaction time ably in the primary cortical hearing
auditory evoked potentials- slow poten- for electrophysiological switch. projection which has its equivalent
tials). In the course of examinations we In the group 20 SM patients we ob- in CAEP as the N1 peak, in all normal
hearing subjects and in the patients
Table 1 examined the peak P2 latencies were
Time parameters AEP and SMR in normal hearing subjects
always longer than the whole SMR
time. Combining SMR and AEP (
Sensation level (db Sl) CAEP ) makes it possible to analyse
Time (ms)
100 80 60 40 20
the time parameters of the acoustic
latency TN1 93 109 127 139 178
reflex arc. The practical use of these
aEP (CaEP)
latency TP2 169 187 206 219 256
two combined methods was presented
in a group of SM patients in whom 80%
rT mech 161 176 189 207 239
SMr
showed, besides ABR changes, elonga-
rT el-ph 135 149 163 174 207
tion of SMR time. n
Bibliografie
1. Pruszewicz A., Świdziński P., Wender M., Kraśny J.: Electric response action time to acoustic stimulus in patients with cochlear implants,
audiometry (ERA) in patients with Multiple Sclerosis, Otolaryng.
Now. Lek. 2008, 77 , supl. 1. XXVth Congress of the Union of European
Pol.,1988,17,113
Phoniatricians, 3rd Conference of Phoniatric Section and Audiologic
2. Humes L.E., Ahlstrom J.B. Relation between reaction time and loud
Section of the Polish Society of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck
ness, J.Speech.Hear.Res.,1984,27,306
Surgery, 7th Conference Acoustics in Audiology and Phoniatrics.
3. Pruszewicz A., Obrębowski A., Narożny K., Świdziński P.: Zeitparam
eter des einfachen motorischen Reflexes auf den akustischen Stimu
Poznań, May 810, 2008. Abstracts of submitted scientific papers.
lus in einigen Hörstörungen und psychoneurologischen Krankheiten.
5. Pruszewicz A., Świdziński P., Narożny K.: Simple motor reaction
SpracheStimmeGehör,1991,15,110
time in acoustic stimulation, Medical Audiology, edd.III,Publ. Med.
4. Karlik M., Świdziński P., Kulesza K., Obrębowski A.: Simple motor re Univ, Poznań, Poland, 2003, p.254
pag. 46
Nr. 2/februarie 2009
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68