Ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in response to air-conducted 500 Hz short tones: Effect of stimulation procedure (monaural or binaural), age and gender.

BACKGROUND: The ocular vestibular myogenic potentials (oVEMP) can be elicited by monaural air-conducted sound stimulation, and are usually recorded from the contralateral eye. In clinical setting a binaural stimulation would save time and require less effort from the subjects. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the differences between monaural and binaural stimulation, and the possible effect of age and gender on oVEMP parameters. METHODS: Air-conducted oVEMP were recorded by binaural and by monaural stimulation in a group of 54 normal subjects, aged from 12 to 83 years, and in 50 vestibular patients. From each side, we measured the latency of the N1 component, and the peak-to-peak N1-P1 amplitude. For both parameters we also computed the asymmetry ratio. RESULTS: In normal subjects binaural stimulation produced slightly larger responses than monaural stimulation; detectability, latency and amplitude ratio were the same for the two techniques. We found no differences related to gender, and the age-induced amplitude decline was likely to be negligible.oVEMP recorded not in an acute phase of their disorder, proved to be abnormal in about 20% of the patients, and the normal or abnormal findings obtained either with monaural or with binaural stimulation were always concordant. CONCLUSIONS: The oVEMP obtained after binaural and monaural stimulation are very similar, and they are largely independent from age and gender.

The N3 potential compared to sound and galvanic vestibular evoked myogenic potential in healthy subjects and in multiple sclerosis patients.

Both sound (s-) and galvanic (g-) vestibular-evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) enable us to study the saccular pathways. However, the VEMP can be abnormal for non-vestibular factors, such as insufficient activation of the sterno-cleido-mastoid (SCM) muscle or a lesion that involves the accessory nucleus and/or nerve or the SCM muscle. These drawbacks do not affect another technique that evaluates the saccular function: the N3 potential. We recorded both the s- and the g-VEMP and the N3 potential in a group of 31 healthy subjects to establish a reference range. The N3 potential and the s-VEMP were recordable bilaterally from all the subjects, whereas the g-VEMP was undetectable uni- or bilaterally in 7 subjects. The latency and amplitude values of the s-VEMP did not differ from those of the g-VEMP. For all three techniques, the latency and amplitude values from the right and from the left recording and/or stimulation side were the same. We suggest using normative latency and amplitude values based on the mean and ratio of the right- and left-side values. The s-VEMP, the N3 potential and the auditory evoked response (ABR) were compared in 15 subjects suffering from multiple sclerosis. The three techniques detected a similar number of abnormalities, but these abnormalities were not correlated. This suggests that these different techniques should be regarded as complementary in evaluating saccular function.