This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

James J. Stockard, MD; Janet E. Stockard; Frank W. Sharbrough, MD
Section of Electroencephalography Department of Neurology Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN 55901

Arch Neurol. 1979;36(9):598-597.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

Two articles in your journal about brain-stem auditoryevoked responses (BAERs) emphasized the importance of controlling technical variables in assessing BAER normal variability and defining BAER abnormalities. As shown in Fig 1, the intrasubject "waveform variations" reported by Chiappa et al¹ can occur solely as a function of varying acoustic polarity (rarefaction vs condensation) of the click stimuli used. We agree with Chiappa et al that the morphologic variations they described are not clinically important, but suggest that other laboratories beginning to collect their normative BAER data control for the effects of click polarity, since it is a determinant of BAER interwave latency and relative amplitude norms² (Fig 1), as well as of morphology. Our general findings and conclusions about normal BAER variability² closely agree with those of Chiappa et al and, specifically, we have long concurred about the limited diagnostic value of waves VI . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?