↓ Skip to main content

Test-Retest of Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potentials (P300) with Pure Tone and Speech Stimuli

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Test-Retest of Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potentials (P300) with Pure Tone and Speech Stimuli
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, April 2016
DOI 10.1055/s-0036-1583527
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Paula Perez, Karin Ziliotto, Liliane Desgualdo Pereira

Abstract

Introduction Long latency auditory evoked potentials, especially P300, have been used for clinical evaluation of mental processing. Many factors can interfere with Auditory Evoked Potential - P300 results, suggesting large intra and inter-subject variations. Objective The objective of the study was to identify the reliability of P3 components (latency and amplitude) over 4-6 weeks and the most stable auditory stimulus with the best test-retest agreement. Methods Ten normal-hearing women participated in the study. Only subjects without auditory processing problems were included. To determine the P3 components, we elicited long latency auditory evoked potential (P300) by pure tone and speech stimuli, and retested after 4-6 weeks using the same parameters. We identified P300 latency and amplitude by waveform subtraction. Results We found lower coefficient of variation values in latency than in amplitude, with less variability analysis when speech stimulus was used. There was no significant correlation in latency measures between pure tone and speech stimuli, and sessions. There was a significant intrasubject correlation between measures of latency and amplitude. Conclusion These findings show that amplitude responses are more robust for the speech stimulus when compared with its pure tone counterpart. The P300 indicated stability for latency and amplitude measures when the test-retest was applied. Reliability was higher for amplitude than for latency, with better agreement when the pure tone stimulus was used. However, further research with speech stimulus is needed to clarify how these stimuli are processed by the nervous system.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Master 3 12%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Linguistics 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,418,183
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#307
of 646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,658
of 299,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 646 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.