[Some people who received this message don't often get email from efp331@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
---- External Email: Use caution with attachments, links, or sharing data ----
Dear Malcom,
ABR is a form of measuring audio perception in general at the level of the brainstem, so If you are interested to see someone’s ability to hear/perceive audio in general, yes that’s the case. However, I do not know of any way measuring different sources of
audio vs silence let’s say (for example if someone is able to listen to a specific piece of music at a certain moment), and then at the same time perform ABR. Technically is not possible because ABR is already feeding the auditory system with audio at the
time of recording. You may be able to perform some monaural/binaural/masking protocols with ABR but I do not think this is what you are looking for, correct?
Best,
Efthymios Papatzikis
> On 29 Jun 2024, at 07:03, Malcolm Slaney <000001757ffb5fe1-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Is there a consensus about what is the most *efficient* way to establish that there is an audio-brain-recording connection? By efficient I mean in terms of the least amount of subject time.
>
> What I want to know is: how can I mostly quickly establish that we are picking up EEG signals *due* to an audio signal?
>
> I suspect ABRs, since they are used in infant screening. FFRs seem interesting because they are continuous. ERPs seem more problematic since they often have a low repetition rate. (Acknowledging that strictly speaking the ABR is a form of ERP.)
>
> Is there a written comparison?
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Malcolm