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
  • [41] Test-Retest Reliability of V-Wave Responses in the Soleus and Gastrocnemius Medialis
    Solstad, Gerd Marie
    Fimland, Marius S.
    Helgerud, Jan
    Iversen, Vegard Moe
    Hoff, Jan
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2011, 28 (02) : 217 - 221
  • [42] Comparing test-retest reliability and magnitude of conditioned pain modulation using different combinations of test and conditioning stimuli
    Imai, Y.
    Petersen, K. K.
    Morch, C. D.
    Nielsen, L. Arendt
    SOMATOSENSORY AND MOTOR RESEARCH, 2016, 33 (3-4) : 169 - 177
  • [43] Weighting of Visual Field Mean Deviation according to Test-Retest Variability of Pointwise Thresholds
    Nassiri, Nariman
    Law, Simon
    Coleman, Anne
    Caprioli, Joseph
    Nouri-Mahdavi, Kouros
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2013, 54 (15)
  • [44] Excellent test-retest reliability of perturbation-evoked cortical responses supports feasibility of the balance N1 as a clinical biomarker
    Mirdamadi, Jasmine L.
    Poorman, Alex
    Munter, Gaetan
    Jones, Kendra
    Ting, Lena H.
    Borich, Michael R.
    Payne, Aiden M.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2025, 133 (03) : 987 - 1001
  • [45] Test-retest reliability in fMRI: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the variability
    McGonigle, David J.
    NEUROIMAGE, 2012, 62 (02) : 1116 - 1120
  • [46] Automated measures of speech content and speech organization in schizophrenia: Test-retest reliability and generalizability across demographic variables
    Minor, Kyle S.
    Lundin, Nancy B.
    Myers, Evan J.
    Fernandez-Villardon, Aitana
    Lysaker, Paul H.
    PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH, 2023, 320
  • [47] Electrically Evoked Auditory Event-Related Responses in Patients with Auditory Brainstem Implants: Morphological Characteristics, Test-Retest Reliability, Effects of Stimulation Level, and Association with Auditory Detection
    He, Shuman
    McFayden, Tyler C.
    Teagle, Holly F. B.
    Ewend, Matthew
    Henderson, Lillian
    Buchman, Craig A.
    EAR AND HEARING, 2016, 37 (06) : 634 - 649
  • [48] Variability in the Estimated Amplitude of Vowel-Evoked Envelope Following Responses Caused by Assumed Neurophysiologic Processing Delays
    Vijayalakshmi Easwar
    Steven Aiken
    Krystal Beh
    Emma McGrath
    Mary Galloy
    Susan Scollie
    David Purcell
    Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 2022, 23 : 759 - 769
  • [49] Neural responses to children's faces: Test-retest reliability of structural and functional MRI
    Heckendorf, Esther
    Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J.
    van Ijzendoorn, Marinus H.
    Huffmeijer, Rens
    BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR, 2019, 9 (03):
  • [50] One-year test-retest reliability of auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) to tones of increasing intensity
    Carrillo-de-la-Peña, MT
    PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 2001, 38 (03) : 417 - 424