Literature DB >> 19928397

Accuracy and time efficiency of two ASSR analysis methods using clinical test protocols.

Kathy R Vander Werff1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The number of commercially available evoked potential systems implementing multiple-frequency auditory steady-state response (ASSR) techniques has increased over the last several years. The majority of data in the multiple-frequency ASSR literature have been obtained using time-domain averaging and Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) techniques with F-test statistical analysis. Another commercially available analysis method has been introduced using an adaptive filtering algorithm called the Fourier Linear Combiner (FLC). No previous investigation has evaluated the performance of the FLC method, nor compared the two techniques. In addition, there is a need for evaluation of clinical protocols for ASSR testing using these available commercial systems that balance time efficiency and accuracy in estimating threshold.
PURPOSE: (1) To determine whether ASSR thresholds, the relationship between ASSR and behavioral thresholds, and clinical test time are affected by the ASSR analysis method when comparing two commercially available systems for multiple-frequency ASSR. (2) To investigate the use of clinical ASSR test protocols of varying recording length, and the effect on accuracy and time efficiency, using these two commercially available analysis methods. RESEARCH DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE: ASSR threshold searches were completed on a group of 20 normal-hearing and 20 hearing-impaired adult participants using two different analysis methods, FFT and FLC, under separate, independent, tests as well under simultaneous recording conditions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three experiments were completed: (1) independent assessment of ASSR thresholds using the FFT and FLC methods separately, (2) simultaneous recording of ASSR for both the FFT and FLC method, and (3) an automated threshold search protocol using the FLC method. Variables analyzed for Experiments 1 and 3 included ASSR thresholds, the difference between ASSR and behavioral threshold, and total test time. For Experiment 2, the number of detected ASSRs per method, the agreement between methods, and the time per detected ASSR were evaluated. RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: ASSR thresholds and the relationship between ASSR and behavioral thresholds were found to be in line with those reported in the literature for multiple-frequency ASSR for both the FLC and FFT methods. ASSR thresholds were found to be significantly higher for the FLC method for the low frequencies, but not for the high frequencies, when tested independently. Correlations between ASSR and behavioral thresholds, however, were found to be the same across methods. Overall, it did not appear that either analysis method held an advantage in terms of accuracy or overall test time in independent comparisons using the protocol implemented in the current study. The time benefits of an automated protocol were significant, although with compromised test accuracy. The results of this study suggest critical clinical decision making is a necessary part of the ASSR protocol in order to decrease false positive and false negative responses and to increase overall efficiency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19928397     DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.20.7.5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  5 in total

1.  Automatic audiometry using auditory steady-state response and sequential test strategy applied to volunteers with normal hearing.

Authors:  Tiago Zanotelli; Felipe Antunes; Eduardo Mazoni Andrade Marçal Mendes; Leonardo Bonato Felix
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Hearing threshold prediction with Auditory Steady State Responses and estimation of correction functions to compensate for differences with behavioral data, in adult subjects. Part 1: Audera and CHARTR EP devices.

Authors:  Stavros Hatzopoulos; Joseph Petruccelli; Lech Śliwa; Wiesław W Jędrzejczak; Krzysztof Kochanek; Henryk Skarżyński
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2012-07

3.  Fast hearing-threshold estimation using multiple auditory steady-state responses with narrow-band chirps and adaptive stimulus patterns.

Authors:  Roland Mühler; Katrin Mentzel; Jesko Verhey
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-04-24

4.  Clinical Validation of a New Tinnitus Assessment Technology.

Authors:  Sylvie Hébert; Philippe Fournier
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 4.003

5.  Evaluation of Speed and Accuracy of Next-Generation Auditory Steady State Response and Auditory Brainstem Response Audiometry in Children With Normal Hearing and Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Yvonne S Sininger; Lisa L Hunter; Deborah Hayes; Patricia A Roush; Kristin M Uhler
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.