Influence of electrode site on ELAR latency

The latencies of the various ELAR responses were compared using 2-way ANOVAs for electrode site versus duration of deafness. This enabled us to investigate whether the potential relationship between latency and electrode site was influenced by pathological factors. For neither N1, P2, nor N1-P2 intervals was an effect of stimulation site found (respectively with F = 0.5, df = 3, p = 0.7; F = 0.8, df = 3, p = 0.5; F = 0.7, df = 3, p = 0.6). There was no significant interaction with the duration of deafness (F = 0.1, df = 3, p = 0.9 for N1; F = 1.6, df = 3, p = 0.2 for P2; F = 2.1, df = 3, p = 0.1 for N1-P2 interval). ANOVAs’ normality test and equal variance test were passed for N1 analysis (respectively with p = 0.12 and p = 0.24), P2 analysis (respectively with p = 0.012 and p = 0.40), and N1-P2 analysis (respectively with p = 0.02 and p = 0.17). Figure 3 illustrates across subject averages of latency as a function of stimulation site for N1 (a), P2 (b), and interval N1-P2 (c).

Figure 3. Mean latencies of N1 (a), P2 (b), and interval N1-P2 (c) obtained from all the subjects as a function of the stimulation site. Vertical bars show the standard error around each mean.