Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2023; 34(03/04): 049-055
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764348
Research Article

A Comparison of Ocular Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials via Audiometric and Nonaudiometric Bone Vibrators

Ruby E. Garbutt
1   School of Psychology, Speech and Hearing – The University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
,
Greg A. O'Beirne 
1   School of Psychology, Speech and Hearing – The University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
2   Eisdell Moore Centre for Hearing and Balance Research, Auckland, New Zealand
,
Michael R. D. Maslin 
1   School of Psychology, Speech and Hearing – The University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
2   Eisdell Moore Centre for Hearing and Balance Research, Auckland, New Zealand
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background There is limited evidence demonstrating the ability of audiometric bone vibrators to elicit ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials (oVEMPs). The RadioEar B71 bone vibrator has insufficient power output to reliably evoke oVEMPs, which has previously left nonaudiometric and nonmedically approved devices such as the Brüel & Kjær Mini-shaker 4810 as the only feasible alternative. The newer RadioEar B81 model has a higher power output than its predecessor, but evidence for its suitability for eliciting oVEMPs has so far been mixed. This variability may be due to factors other than simply the power output, such as whether sufficient static force is applied to hold the transducer in place and transfer vibratory energy into the bone.

Purpose This study aimed to test the hypothesis that bone-conducted oVEMPs can be obtained with the B81 that are equivalent to those from the Mini-shaker, the de facto gold-standard transducer for this response, when the outputs of the two transducers are matched and they are coupled with sufficient static force.

Research Design oVEMPs elicited by both transducers were recorded in a counterbalanced within-groups design.

Study Sample Sixteen healthy adults (12 female; 22–47 years) with no history of hearing, balance, or neurological disorders were included in the study.

Data collection and analysis One-cycle alternating tone-burst stimuli at 500 Hz were delivered to the mastoid from each transducer. The vibratory force levels were matched at 127 dB peak-to-peak equivalent force levels, and both were held in place with a static force around 10 N. oVEMP waveforms were gathered from the contralateral eye using the belly-tendon montage and were assessed for statistical equivalence.

Results There was an absence of any statistically significant difference in N10 and N10–P15 amplitudes in oVEMPs from each transducer.

Conclusions Our results indicate that B81 can elicit oVEMPs with no meaningful differences to those from the Mini-shaker, provided effective stimulus levels are matched and static force is sufficient. Although further work is necessary to investigate equivalence at other stimulus frequencies and stimulation sites, the results support the use of the B81 to elicit 500Hz oVEMPs at the mastoid in a clinical setting.

Keywords

bone conduction - oVEMP - vestibular evoked myogenic potential - B81 - Mini-shaker


Publication History

Received: 08 September 2022

Accepted: 30 January 2023

Article published online:
30 September 2024

© 2024. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Weber KP, Rosengren SM. Clinical utility of ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (oVEMPs). Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 2015; 15 (05) 22
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Rosengren SM, Colebatch JG, Young AS, Govender S, Welgampola MS. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in practice: methods, pitfalls and clinical applications. Clin Neurophysiol Pract 2019; 4: 47-68
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Fife TD, Colebatch JG, Kerber KA. et al. Practice guideline: cervical and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potential testing: report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2017; 89 (22) 2288-2296
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Curthoys IS, MacDougall HG, Vidal PP, de Waele C. Sustained and transient vestibular systems: a physiological basis for interpreting vestibular function. Front Neurol 2017; 8: 117
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Curthoys IS, Grant JW, Burgess AM, Pastras CJ, Brown DJ, Manzari L. Otolithic receptor mechanisms for vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials: a review. Front Neurol 2018; 9: 366
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Todd NP, Rosengren SM, Colebatch JG. Tuning and sensitivity of the human vestibular system to low-frequency vibration. Neurosci Lett 2008; 444 (01) 36-41
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Todd NP, Rosengren SM, Govender S, Colebatch JG. Low-frequency tuning in the human vestibular-ocular projection is determined by both peripheral and central mechanisms. Neurosci Lett 2009; 458 (01) 43-47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Weber KP, Rosengren SM, Michels R, Sturm V, Straumann D, Landau K. Single motor unit activity in human extraocular muscles during the vestibulo-ocular reflex. J Physiol 2012; 590 (13) 3091-3101
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Fredén Jansson KJ, Håkansson B, Reinfeldt S, Persson AC, Eeg-Olofsson M. Bone conduction stimulated VEMP using the B250 transducer. Med Devices (Auckl) 2021; 14: 225-237
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Håkansson B, Jansson KF, Tengstrand T. et al. VEMP using a new low-frequency bone conduction transducer. Med Devices (Auckl) 2018; 11: 301-312
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Fröhlich L, Wilke M, Plontke SK, Rahne T. Influence of bone conduction transducer type and placement on ocular and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 8500
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Iwasaki S, Smulders YE, Burgess AM. et al. Ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials to bone conducted vibration of the midline forehead at Fz in healthy subjects. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119 (09) 2135-2147
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Rosengren SM, Govender S, Colebatch JG. Ocular and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potentials produced by air- and bone-conducted stimuli: comparative properties and effects of age. Clin Neurophysiol 2011; 122 (11) 2282-2289
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Murofushi T, Ohki M, Tsubota M. Effects of external auditory meatus occlusion on ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials induced by bone conducted sound. Front Neurol 2021; 12: 659820
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 IEC 60601–1:2005. Medical Electrical Equipment - Part 1: General Requirements for Basic Safety and Essential Performance. 2005
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Greenwalt NL, Patterson JN, Rodriguez AI, Fitzpatrick D, Gordon KR, Janky KL. Bone Conduction Vibration Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potential (VEMP) testing: reliability in children, adolescents, and young adults. Ear Hear 2021; 42 (02) 355-363
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Brüel & Kjær. Mini-shaker Type 4810 Product Data. 2014 . Accessed on September 8, 2022 at: www.bksv.com
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Jansson KJ, Håkansson B, Johannsen L, Tengstrand T. Electro-acoustic performance of the new bone vibrator Radioear B81: a comparison with the conventional Radioear B71. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (05) 334-340
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Clinard CG, Piker EG, Thorne AP. et al. Maximum output and low-frequency limitations of B71 and B81 clinical bone vibrators: implications for vestibular evoked potentials. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (04) 847-854
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Rosengren SM, Todd NP, Colebatch JG. Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials evoked by brief interaural head acceleration: properties and possible origin. J Appl Physiol 2009; 107 (03) 841-852
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Small SA, Hatton JL, Stapells DR. Effects of bone oscillator coupling method, placement location, and occlusion on bone-conduction auditory steady-state responses in infants. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (01) 83-98
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 IEC 60645:2020. Electroacoustics - Audiometric Equipment - Part 3: Test Signals of Short Duration. 2020
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Sandhu JS, George SR, Rea PA. The effect of electrode positioning on the ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potential to air-conducted sound. Clin Neurophysiol 2013; 124 (06) 1232-1236
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Lakens D. Equivalence tests: a practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 2017; 8 (04) 355-362
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Nguyen KD, Welgampola MS, Carey JP. Test-retest reliability and age-related characteristics of the ocular and cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential tests. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (05) 793-802
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Garbutt R. New Technologies in Ocular Vestibular Evoked Myogenic Potentials: An Evaluation of oVEMPs Elicited by the Radioear B81 Bone Vibrator in Comparison to the Brüel & Kjær 4810 Minishaker [Masters of Audiology thesis]. Christchurch: University of Canterbury; 2022. . Accessed on September 8, 2022 at: http://dx.doi.org/10.26021/12824
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar