ABSTRACT Purpose: identifying if there are differences in the findings of Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potencial for latency and amplitude in different ways of counting the rare stimulus, being mentally counting or marking on paper (without memorizing). Methods: this study was prospective and transversal. The sample consisted of convenience and comprised by 49 subjects, including 29 females and 20 males.The following procedures were performed: Visual inspection of the external auditory canal, pure tone audiometry, acoustic immittance measures and long latency auditory evoked potentials, which was performed twice, one after the other, with individuals paying attention to the rare stimulus, always starting counting mentally and after marking on paper. Results: there were significant differences between the ears to the P1, P2 latencies and amplitude of N1 for the method of marking on paper and the amplitude of P2 in both methods but with all values within the range normality. In addition, a statistically significant difference was also evident when comparing genders, being found larger latency values of P2 and N2 for males in both counting methods of the rare stimuli. The amplitude of P1, P2 and P3 was lower in males in different ways to count, being in P2 the only difference in the method counting mentally. When comparing the methods, there was a statistically significant difference only to the latency of P2 which was higher values for the method of marking on paper. Conclusion: there were no differences for the latencies and amplitudes of the long latency potentials in comparison of the rare stimulus score (counting mentally and marking on paper) for almost all potentials except for P2 potential regarding to amplitude and latency.

ABSTRACT Purpose: identifying if there are differences in the findings of Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potencial for latency and amplitude in different ways of counting the rare stimulus, being mentally counting or marking on paper (without memorizing). Methods: this study was prospective and transversal. The sample consisted of convenience and comprised by 49 subjects, including 29 females and 20 males.The following procedures were performed: Visual inspection of the external auditory canal, pure tone audiometry, acoustic immittance measures and long latency auditory evoked potentials, which was performed twice, one after the other, with individuals paying attention to the rare stimulus, always starting counting mentally and after marking on paper. Results: there were significant differences between the ears to the P1, P2 latencies and amplitude of N1 for the method of marking on paper and the amplitude of P2 in both methods but with all values within the range normality. In addition, a statistically significant difference was also evident when comparing genders, being found larger latency values of P2 and N2 for males in both counting methods of the rare stimuli. The amplitude of P1, P2 and P3 was lower in males in different ways to count, being in P2 the only difference in the method counting mentally. When comparing the methods, there was a statistically significant difference only to the latency of P2 which was higher values for the method of marking on paper. Conclusion: there were no differences for the latencies and amplitudes of the long latency potentials in comparison of the rare stimulus score (counting mentally and marking on paper) for almost all potentials except for P2 potential regarding to amplitude and latency.