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
来源
EAR AND HEARING | 2020年 / 41卷 / 01期
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
  • [1] TEST-RETEST VARIABILITY IN TESTING HEARING OF SPEECH
    HUGHES, EC
    ARTHUR, RH
    JOHNSON, RL
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN AUDITORY SOCIETY, 1979, 5 (01): : 17 - 20
  • [2] TEST-RETEST VARIABILITY IN SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTING
    ENGELBERG, M
    LARYNGOSCOPE, 1968, 78 (09): : 1582 - +
  • [3] Improving Test-Retest Variability of Visual-Evoked Responses in Multiple Sclerosis
    Thomae, Eva
    Niklas, Alexander
    Sebraoui, Hatifa
    Baum, Petra
    Wagner, Armin
    Bergh, Florian Then
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2010, 27 (04) : 270 - 273
  • [4] Characteristics of Speech-Evoked Envelope Following Responses in Infancy
    Easwar, Vijayalakshmi
    Scollie, Susan
    Lasarev, Michael
    Urichuk, Matthew
    Aiken, Steven J.
    Purcell, David W.
    TRENDS IN HEARING, 2021, 25
  • [5] Test-retest reliability of the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response
    Song, Judy H.
    Nicol, Trent
    Kraus, Nina
    CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2011, 122 (02) : 346 - 355
  • [6] Test-retest consistency of speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses in typically-developing children
    Hornickel, Jane
    Knowles, Erica
    Kraus, Nina
    HEARING RESEARCH, 2012, 284 (1-2) : 52 - 58
  • [7] Test-retest reliability of auditory brainstem responses to chirp stimuli in newborns
    Cobb, Kensi M.
    Stuart, Andrew
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY, 2014, 53 (11) : 829 - 835
  • [8] Test-retest variability of multifocal visual evoked potential and SITA standard perimetry
    Bjerre, A
    Henson, DB
    Grigg, JR
    Parry, NRA
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2003, 44 : U1 - U1
  • [9] UNDERSAMPLING AND SAP TEST-RETEST VARIABILITY
    Maddess, Ted
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2011, 39 : 82 - 83
  • [10] Test-retest reliability of chemosensory evoked potentials
    Welge-Lüssen, A
    Wille, C
    Renner, B
    Kobal, T
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2003, 20 (02) : 135 - 142