Long latency auditory evoked potential: differences in count form of rare stimulus

ABSTRACT Purpose: identifying if there are differences in the findings of Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potencial for latency and amplitude in different ways of counting the rare stimulus, being mentally counting or marking on paper (without memorizing). Methods: this study was prospective and transversal. The sample consisted of convenience and comprised by 49 subjects, including 29 females and 20 males.The following procedures were performed: Visual inspection of the external auditory canal, pure tone audiometry, acoustic immittance measures and long latency auditory evoked potentials, which was performed twice, one after the other, with individuals paying attention to the rare stimulus, always starting counting mentally and after marking on paper. Results: there were significant differences between the ears to the P1, P2 latencies and amplitude of N1 for the method of marking on paper and the amplitude of P2 in both methods but with all values within the range normality. In addition, a statistically significant difference was also evident when comparing genders, being found larger latency values of P2 and N2 for males in both counting methods of the rare stimuli. The amplitude of P1, P2 and P3 was lower in males in different ways to count, being in P2 the only difference in the method counting mentally. When comparing the methods, there was a statistically significant difference only to the latency of P2 which was higher values for the method of marking on paper. Conclusion: there were no differences for the latencies and amplitudes of the long latency potentials in comparison of the rare stimulus score (counting mentally and marking on paper) for almost all potentials except for P2 potential regarding to amplitude and latency.摘要 研究目的：探究两种稀有刺激计数方式（内心默数与纸笔标记（无需记忆））下，长潜伏期听觉诱发电位（Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potential）的潜伏期与波幅是否存在差异。研究方法：本研究为前瞻性横断面研究，采用便利抽样法纳入49名受试者，其中女性29名，男性20名。实验流程包括外耳道视诊、纯音测听、声导抗检测，以及长潜伏期听觉诱发电位检测，该检测分两次连续进行，受试者需关注稀有刺激，首先采用内心默数方式计数，随后采用纸笔标记方式计数。研究结果：采用纸笔标记法时，双耳的P1、P2潜伏期及N1波幅存在显著差异；两种计数方式下，P2波幅均存在双耳差异，但所有检测值均处于正常参考范围内。此外，性别比较亦存在统计学差异：两种稀有刺激计数方式下，男性受试者的P2与N2潜伏期均更长；不同计数方式下，男性受试者的P1、P2及P3波幅均更低，其中仅P2波幅差异在默数计数方式中显著。对比两种计数方式时，仅P2潜伏期存在统计学差异，纸笔标记法的P2潜伏期更高。研究结论：除P2电位的波幅与潜伏期外，两种稀有刺激计数方式（内心默数与纸笔标记）下的长潜伏期诱发电位的潜伏期与波幅均无显著差异。