Measuring Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential Using Two Different Procedures

Authors

  • Kaushlendra Kumar Department of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India
  • Kiran M. Bhojwani Department of E.N.T., Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India
  • Jayashree Bhat Department of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India
  • Nimalka Maria Sequeira Department of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, Kasturba Medical College Mangalore, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12970/2311-1917.2014.02.03.4

Keywords:

 Otolithic organ, VEMP, latency, amplitude, muscle, visual feedback.

Abstract

Latest developments in technology has equipped the clinician’s ability to evaluate otolithic function through VEMP testing. The present study was taken up to investigate the changes in the VEMP parameters while recording VEMP response with visual feedback system to control EMG. VEMP testing was administered on 20 participants between 20-40 years of age. The study results showed no statistically significant difference in amplitude and latency of cVEMP and oVEMP responses with and without visual feedback system. However, with visual feedback system standard deviations were observed to be reduced for both cVEMP and oVEMP responses. Hence we can conclude that using the visual feedback system to monitor the muscle contraction in otological disorders is easier and more reliable than testing without visual feedback.

References

Mccuev P. Acoustically Responsive Fibers in the Vestibular Nerve of the Cat 1994; 74.

McCue MP, Guinan JJ. Spontaneous activity and frequency selectivity of acoustically responsive vestibular afferents in the cat. J Neurophysiol 1995; 74(4): 1563-72.

Murofushi T, Curthoys IS, Topple AN, Colebatch JG, Halmagyi GM. Responses of guinea pig primary vestibular neurons to clicks. Exp brain Res 1995; 103(1): 174-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00241975

Murofushi T, Curthoys IS, Gilchrist DP. Response of guinea pig vestibular nucleus neurons to clicks. Exp brain Res 1996; 111(1): 149-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00229565

Murofushi T, Curthoys IS. Physiological and anatomical study of click-sensitive primary vestibular afferents in the guinea pig. Acta Otolaryngol 1997; 117(1): 66-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016489709117994

Young ED, Fernández C, Goldberg JM. Responses of squirrel monkey vestibular neurons to audio-frequency sound and head vibration. Acta Otolaryngol 1977; 84(5-6): 352-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016487709123977

Curthoys IS, Burgess AM, MacDougall HG, et al. Testing human otolith function using bone-conducted vibration. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1164: 344-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2008.03728.x

Curthoys IS. A critical review of the neurophysiological evidence underlying clinical vestibular testing using sound, vibration and galvanic stimuli. Clin Neurophysiol 2010; 121(2): 132-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.09.027

Colebatch JG, Halmagyi GM. Vestibular evoked potentials in human neck muscles before and after unilateral vestibular deafferentation. Neurology 1992; 42(8): 1635-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.42.8.1635

Colebatch JG, Halmagyi GM, Skuse NF. Myogenic potentials generated by a click-evoked vestibulocollic reflex. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994; 57(2): 190-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.57.2.190

Rosengren SM, McAngus Todd NP, Colebatch JG. Vestibular-evoked extraocular potentials produced by stimulation with bone-conducted sound. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116(8): 1938-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2005.03.019

Todd NPM, Rosengren SM, Aw ST, Colebatch JG. Ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (OVEMPs) produced by air- and bone-conducted sound. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118(2): 381-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2006.09.025

Chihara Y, Iwasaki S, Ushio M, Murofushi T. Vestibular-evoked extraocular potentials by air-conducted sound: another clinical test for vestibular function. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118(12): 2745-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.08.005

Li MW, Houlden D, Tomlinson RD. Click evoked EMG responses in sternocleidomastoid muscles: characteristics in normal subjects. J Vestib Res 1999; 9(5): 327-34.

Akin FW, Murnane OD, Panus PC, Caruthers SK, Wilkinson AE, Proffitt TM. The influence of voluntary tonic EMG level on the vestibular-evoked myogenic potential. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004; 41(3B): 473-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2003.04.0060

Welgampola MS, Colebatch JG. Characteristics and clinical applications of vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials. Neurology 2005; 64(10): 1682-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/01.WNL.0000161876.20552.AA

Lim CL, Clouston P, Sheean G, Yiannikas C. The influence of voluntary EMG activity and click intensity on the vestibular click evoked myogenic potential. Muscle Nerve 1995; 18(10): 1210-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mus.880181021

Ferber-Viart C, Duclaux R, Colleaux B, Dubreuil C. Myogenic Vestibular-Evoked Potentials in Normal Subjects: A Comparison Between Responses Obtained from Sternomastoid and Trapezius Muscles. Acta Otolaryngol 1997; 117(4): 472-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/00016489709113424

Downloads

Published

2014-12-05

Issue

Section

Articles