M A Chesnaye1, S L Bell1, J M Harte2, D M Simpson1. 1. a Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment , University of Southampton , Southampton , UK and. 2. b Interacoustics Research Unit , Technical University of Denmark , Copenhagen , Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the specificity, sensitivity and detection time of various time-domain and multi-band frequency domain methods when detecting the auditory brainstem response (ABR). DESIGN: Simulations and subject recorded data were used to assess and compare the performance of the Hotelling's T2 test (applied in either time or frequency domain), two versions of the modified q-sample uniform scores test and both the Fsp and Fmp, which were evaluated using both conventional F-distributions with assumed degrees of freedom and a bootstrap approach. STUDY SAMPLE: Data consisted of click-evoked ABRs and recordings of EEG background activity from 12 to 17 normal hearing adults, respectively. RESULTS: An overall advantage in sensitivity and detection time was demonstrated for the Hotelling's T2 test. The false-positive rates (FPRs) of the Fsp and Fmp were also closer to the nominal alpha-level when evaluating statistical significance using the bootstrap approach, as opposed to using conventional F-distributions. The FPRs of the remaining methods were slightly higher than expected. CONCLUSIONS: In this work, Hotelling's T2 outperformed the alternative methods for automatically detecting ABRs. Its promise as a sensitive and efficient detection method should now be tested in a larger clinical study.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the specificity, sensitivity and detection time of various time-domain and multi-band frequency domain methods when detecting the auditory brainstem response (ABR). DESIGN: Simulations and subject recorded data were used to assess and compare the performance of the Hotelling's T2 test (applied in either time or frequency domain), two versions of the modified q-sample uniform scores test and both the Fsp and Fmp, which were evaluated using both conventional F-distributions with assumed degrees of freedom and a bootstrap approach. STUDY SAMPLE: Data consisted of click-evoked ABRs and recordings of EEG background activity from 12 to 17 normal hearing adults, respectively. RESULTS: An overall advantage in sensitivity and detection time was demonstrated for the Hotelling's T2 test. The false-positive rates (FPRs) of the Fsp and Fmp were also closer to the nominal alpha-level when evaluating statistical significance using the bootstrap approach, as opposed to using conventional F-distributions. The FPRs of the remaining methods were slightly higher than expected. CONCLUSIONS: In this work, Hotelling's T2 outperformed the alternative methods for automatically detecting ABRs. Its promise as a sensitive and efficient detection method should now be tested in a larger clinical study.