Test-Retest Variability in the Characteristics of Envelope Following Responses Evoked by Speech Stimuli

被引:18
|
作者
Easwar, Vijayalakshmi [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Scollie, Susan [3 ,4 ]
Aiken, Steven [5 ]
Purcell, David [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Commun Sci & Disorders, Madison, WI USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin, Waisman Ctr, Madison, WI USA
[3] Western Univ, Natl Ctr Audiol, London, ON, Canada
[4] Western Univ, Sch Commun Sci & Disorders, London, ON, Canada
[5] Dalhousie Univ, Sch Commun Sci & Disorders, Halifax, NS, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会; 加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
Amplitude; Auditory steady-state response; Coefficient of variation; Detection; Fourier analyzer; Fricatives; Phase coherence; Repeatability coefficient; Vowels; FREQUENCY-FOLLOWING RESPONSE; STEADY-STATE RESPONSES; HEARING-AID GAIN; SPECTRAL DISTRIBUTION; RELIABILITY; ADULTS; COMPRESSION; POTENTIALS; BANDWIDTH; INPUT;
D O I
10.1097/AUD.0000000000000739
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Objectives: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the between-session test-retest variability in the characteristics of envelope following responses (EFRs) evoked by modified natural speech stimuli in young normal hearing adults. Design: EFRs from 22 adults were recorded in two sessions, 1 to 12 days apart. EFRs were evoked by the token /susa integral i/ (2.05sec) presented at 65 dB SPL and recorded from the vertex referenced to the neck. The token /susa integral i/, spoken by a male with an average fundamental frequency [f(0)] of 98.53 Hz, was of interest because of its potential utility as an objective hearing aid outcome measure. Each vowel was modified to elicit two EFRs simultaneously by lowering the f(0) in the first formant while maintaining the original f(0) in the higher formants. Fricatives were amplitude-modulated at 93.02 Hz and elicited one EFR each. EFRs evoked by vowels and fricatives were estimated using Fourier analyzer and discrete Fourier transform, respectively. Detection of EFRs was determined by an F-test. Test-retest variability in EFR amplitude and phase coherence were quantified using correlation, repeated-measures analysis of variance, and the repeatability coefficient. The repeatability coefficient, computed as twice the standard deviation (SD) of test-retest differences, represents the 95% limits of test-retest variation around the mean difference. Test-retest variability of EFR amplitude and phase coherence were compared using the coefficient of variation, a normalized metric, which represents the ratio of the SD of repeat measurements to its mean. Consistency in EFR detection outcomes was assessed using the test of proportions. Results: EFR amplitude and phase coherence did not vary significantly between sessions, and were significantly correlated across repeat measurements. The repeatability coefficient for EFR amplitude ranged from 38.5 nV to 45.6 nV for all stimuli, except for /integral/ (71.6 nV). For any given stimulus, the test-retest differences in EFR amplitude of individual participants were not correlated with their test-retest differences in noise amplitude. However, across stimuli, higher repeatability coefficients of EFR amplitude tended to occur when the group mean noise amplitude and the repeatability coefficient of noise amplitude were higher. The test-retest variability of phase coherence was comparable to that of EFR amplitude in terms of the coefficient of variation, and the repeatability coefficient varied from 0.1 to 0.2, with the highest value of 0.2 for /integral/. Mismatches in EFR detection outcomes occurred in 11 of 176 measurements. For each stimulus, the tests of proportions revealed a significantly higher proportion of matched detection outcomes compared to mismatches. Conclusions: Speech-evoked EFRs demonstrated reasonable repeatability across sessions. Of the eight stimuli, the shortest stimulus /integral/ demonstrated the largest variability in EFR amplitude and phase coherence. The test-retest variability in EFR amplitude could not be explained by test-retest differences in noise amplitude for any of the stimuli. This lack of explanation argues for other sources of variability, one possibility being the modulation of cortical contributions imposed on brainstem-generated EFRs.
引用
收藏
页码:150 / 164
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Test-retest variability of brain morphometry analysis: an investigation of sequence and coil effects
    Yan, Shuang
    Qian, Tianyi
    Marechal, Benedicte
    Kober, Tobias
    Zhang, Xianchang
    Zhu, Jinxia
    Lei, Jing
    Li, Mingli
    Jin, Zhengyu
    ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2020, 8 (01)
  • [32] Test-Retest Reliability of Low-Level Evoked Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions
    Stuart, Andrew
    Passmore, Amy L.
    Culbertson, Deborah S.
    Jones, Sherri M.
    JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH, 2009, 52 (03): : 671 - 681
  • [33] Test-retest reliability of evoked BOLD signals from a cognitive-emotive fMRI test battery
    Plichta, Michael M.
    Schwarz, Adam J.
    Grimm, Oliver
    Morgen, Katrin
    Mier, Daniela
    Haddad, Leila
    Gerdes, Antje B. M.
    Sauer, Carina
    Tost, Heike
    Esslinger, Christine
    Colman, Peter
    Wilson, Frederick
    Kirsch, Peter
    Meyer-Lindenberg, Andreas
    NEUROIMAGE, 2012, 60 (03) : 1746 - 1758
  • [34] Test-retest reliability of binaural simultaneous cervical vestibular evoked myogenic potential recording
    Lee, Min Young
    Yi, Yeo-Jeen
    Park, Hanaro
    Kim, Mi Hee
    Lee, Jun Ho
    Oh, Seung-Ha
    Suh, Myung-Whan
    JOURNAL OF VESTIBULAR RESEARCH-EQUILIBRIUM & ORIENTATION, 2015, 25 (3-4): : 151 - 160
  • [35] Test-Retest Reliability of Pediatric Heart Rate Variability A Meta-Analysis
    Weiner, Oren M.
    McGrath, Jennifer J.
    JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 2017, 31 (01) : 6 - 28
  • [36] The Freiburg Acuity Test in Preschool Children: Testability, Test-Retest Variability, and Comparison With LEA Symbols
    Farassat, Navid
    Jehle, Vanessa
    Heinrich, Sven P.
    Lagreze, Wolf A.
    Bach, Michael
    TRANSLATIONAL VISION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2024, 13 (03):
  • [37] Evaluation of Speech-Evoked Envelope Following Responses as an Objective Aided Outcome Measure: Effect of Stimulus Level, Bandwidth, and Amplification in Adults With Hearing Loss
    Easwar, Vijayalakshmi
    Purcell, David W.
    Aiken, Steven J.
    Parsa, Vijay
    Scollie, Susan D.
    EAR AND HEARING, 2015, 36 (06) : 635 - 652
  • [38] Test-retest reliability and circadian performance variability of a 15-s Wingate Anaerobic Test
    Hachana, Younes
    Attia, Ahmed
    Chaabene, Helmi
    Gallas, Syrine
    Sassi, Radhouane Haj
    Dotan, Raffy
    BIOLOGICAL RHYTHM RESEARCH, 2012, 43 (04) : 413 - 421
  • [39] The Influence of Vowel Identity, Vowel Production Variability, and Consonant Environment on Envelope Following Responses
    Easwar, Vijayalakshmi
    Bridgwater, Emma
    Purcell, David
    EAR AND HEARING, 2021, 42 (03) : 662 - 672
  • [40] Test-Retest Reliability of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) in Brazilian Portuguese
    Ribeiro Aguiar, Raiza Gorbachev
    de Almeida, Katia
    de Miranda-Gonsalez, Elisiane Crestani
    INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2019, 23 (04) : E380 - E383