Marjana Gois

Long-latency auditory evoked potentials with verbal and nonverbal stimuli,

INTRODUCTION Long-latency auditory evoked potentials represent the cortical activity related to attention, memory, and auditory discrimination skills. Acoustic signal processing occurs differently between verbal and nonverbal stimuli, influencing the latency and amplitude patterns. OBJECTIVE To describe the latencies of the cortical potentials P1, N1, P2, N2, and P3, as well as P3 amplitude, with different speech stimuli and tone bursts, and to classify them in the presence and absence of these data. METHODS A total of 30 subjects with normal hearing were assessed, aged 18-32 years old, matched by gender. Nonverbal stimuli were used (tone burst; 1000Hz - frequent and 4000Hz - rare); and verbal (/ba/ - frequent; /ga/, /da/, and /di/ - rare). RESULTS Considering the component N2 for tone burst, the lowest latency found was 217.45ms for the BA/DI stimulus; the highest latency found was 256.5ms. For the P3 component, the shortest latency with tone burst stimuli was 298.7 with BA/GA stimuli, the highest, was 340ms. For the P3 amplitude, there was no statistically significant difference among the different stimuli. For latencies of components P1, N1, P2, N2, P3, there were no statistical differences among them, regardless of the stimuli used. CONCLUSION There was a difference in the latency of potentials N2 and P3 among the stimuli employed but no difference was observed for the P3 amplitude.

Habilidade de ordenação temporal e nível de especificidade nos diferentes testes tonais

Purpose: Evaluate temporal ordering ability with different tests, verify the specificity of these tests and compare the result with the level of easiness/difficulty reported by the subjects. Methods: The subjects carried out basic audiological evaluation and Dichotic Digit Test, for auditory processing screening, and they also underwent Frequency Pattern Test (FPT) and Duration Pattern Test (TPD), in the versions of Taborga-Lizarro, Musiek and Auditec®, in order to evaluate the temporal ordering ability. Afterwards, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was presented, so that the subjects could identify the difficulty of each test. Results: A total of 33 subjects were evaluated, being 29 women and four men, aged from 17 to 27 years. There were a higher number of individuals who have reached normal levels in Auditec® test and in Taborga-Lizarro test, for FPT and TPD. In the Musiek test, there were some subjects with normal results very close to the ones observed on subjects with processing disorders. In the distribution of the most difficult test, there was a statistical significance for the Musiek test. In terms of the specificity of the test, Auditec® proved to be better. However, the analysis was performed only on TPD. Conclusion: Although the subjects did not present change and auditory processing complaints, we found difference in the results of temporal ordering tests. In relation to the reported difficulty for Musiek test, we verified that there was influence of this factor on the test results. In the analysis for specificity tests, better results for the Auditec® test could be observed.

Avaliação clínica e eletromiográfica da mastigação nos diferentes padrões de crescimento facial

Purpose: to analyze masticatory function within different facial types through clinical and electromyographic evaluation of masseter and anterior temporalis muscles. Methods: sixty-five children aged six to 12 years old, males and females, who met the study criteria, were selected. The clinical evaluation of mastication was performed based on the MBGR protocol, as well as the electromiography of masseter and anterior temporalis muscles, on the right and left side in directed continued mastication. The data were analyzed considering the significance level of 5%. Results: in the clinical evaluation of mastication, no significant differences between the three facial types studied were observed, except for a tendency to significance in unexpected muscle contractions, with the highest occurrence observed in dolichofacials (66.67%), followed by mesofacials (46.67%) e brachyfacials (26.83%). Through electromyographic evaluation, no significant differences between the three groups studied were observed. Comparing the muscles within each facial type, a higher electrical activity of the right masseter muscle over the right temporal, and a higher electrical activity of the left temporal muscle over the right temporal muscle (p=0.049) was verified. Conclusion: the results of clinical and electromyographic evaluations of mastication did not differ within the facial types, suggesting that the pattern of facial growth itself is not a determinant in the modifications of the masticatory function and these modifications might be related to other variations not taken into account in this study.