Quantitative EEG and the Frye and Daubert Standards of Admissibility

The 70-year-old Frye standards of “general acceptance” were replaced by the Supreme Court's 1993 Daubert criteria of the scientific method, which established the standards for admissibility of evidence in Federal Court. The four Daubert criteria were: 1- Hypothesis testing, 2- Estimates of error rates, 3- Peer reviewed publication and 4- General acceptance (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 61 U.S.L.W 4805 (U.S. June 29, 1993)). The present paper starts with the Daubert four factors and then matches them, step by step, to the scientific peer reviewed literature of quantitative EEG (QEEG) in relation to different clinical evaluations. This process shows how the peer reviewed science of the Digital EEG and the Quantitative EEG (QEEG) meet all of the Daubert standards of scientific knowledge. Furthermore, the science and technical aspects of QEEG in measuring the effects of neurological and psychiatric dysfunction also match the recent Supreme Court standards of “technical” and “other specialized” knowledge (General Electric Co v. Joiner, 1997; Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. Carmichael, 1999). Finally, it is shown that QEEG scientific knowledge and QEEG “technical” and “other specialized” knowledge meet the trilogy standards of the Supreme Court rulings in support of QEEG's admissibility as a clinically valid method in the evaluation of the nature and extent of neurological and psychiatric disorders.

[1]  R. Thatcher,et al.  BIOPHYSICAL LINKAGE BETWEEN MRI AND EEG COHERENCE IN TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY , 1998, NeuroImage.

[2]  A. Ommaya,et al.  Head injury mechanisms and the concept of preventive management: a review and critical synthesis. , 1995, Journal of neurotrauma.

[3]  R. Thatcher,et al.  Biophysical Linkage between MRI and EEG Coherence in Closed Head Injury , 1998, NeuroImage.

[4]  T Fernández,et al.  Test-retest reliability of EEG spectral parameters during cognitive tasks: II. Coherence. , 1993, The International journal of neuroscience.

[5]  Richard W. Robinett.  Quantum Mechanics , 1996 .

[6]  R. Thatcher,et al.  An EEG severity index of traumatic brain injury. , 2001, The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences.

[7]  R. Thatcher,et al.  Biophysical Linkage between MRI and EEG Amplitude in Closed Head Injury , 1998, NeuroImage.

[8]  B. Oken,et al.  Test-retest reliability in EEG frequency analysis. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[9]  Miguel Angel Guevara,et al.  Stability of EEG inter- and intrahemispheric correlation in women. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[10]  T. Gasser,et al.  Test-retest reliability of spectral parameters of the EEG. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  E R John,et al.  Switchboard versus statistical theories of learning and memory. , 1972, Science.

[12]  F H Duffy,et al.  Status of Quantitative EEG (QEEG) in Clinical Practice, 1994 , 1994, Clinical EEG.

[13]  Edward G. Carmines,et al.  Reliability and Validity Assessment , 1979 .

[14]  L. Schneider,et al.  Reliability of topographic quantitative EEG amplitude in healthy late-middle-aged and elderly subjects. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[15]  E. John,et al.  Developmental equations for the electroencephalogram. , 1980, Science.

[16]  R. Thatcher,et al.  Limitations of the American Academy of Neurology and American Clinical Neurophysiology Society paper on QEEG. , 1999, The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences.

[17]  J. Frost,et al.  Computer determination of relationships between EEG activity and single unit discharges in isolated cerebral cortex. , 1966, Experimental Neurology.

[18]  M. N. Nuwer,et al.  Assessment of digital EEG, quantitative EEG, and EEG brain mapping: Report of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society* , 1997, Neurology.

[19]  R. Thatcher,et al.  Comprehensive Predictions of Outcome in Closed Head‐Injured Patients , 1991, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[20]  R. Thatcher,et al.  EEG discriminant analyses of mild head trauma. , 1989, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[21]  S. Nugent,et al.  Findings of mild traumatic brain injury in combat veterans with PTSD and a history of blast concussion. , 1998, The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences.

[22]  A Burgess,et al.  Individual reliability of amplitude distribution in topographical mapping of EEG. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[23]  Hamilton-Bruce Ma,et al.  Interoperator variability in quantitative electroencephalography. , 1991 .

[24]  E. R. John,et al.  Neurometric evaluation of cognitive dysfunctions and neurological disorders in children , 1983, Progress in Neurobiology.

[25]  E. John,et al.  Conventional and quantitative electroencephalography in psychiatry. , 1999, The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences.

[26]  J. Rossi,et al.  A guide for applying principal-components analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to quantitative electroencephalogram data. , 1996, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[27]  R. Thatcher,et al.  Human cerebral hemispheres develop at different rates and ages. , 1987, Science.

[28]  S. Sponheim,et al.  Internal consistency reliability of resting EEG power spectra in schizophrenic and normal subjects. , 1995, Psychophysiology.

[29]  R. Thatcher,et al.  Estimation of the EEG power spectrum using MRI T 2 relaxation time in traumatic brain injury , 2001, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[30]  J. Nunnally.  Psychometric Theory (2nd ed), New York: McGraw-Hill. , 1978 .

[31]  D. Ingvar,et al.  Quantified EEG and cortical evoked responses in patients with chronic traumatic frontal lesions. , 1992, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[32]  Treatment Resistant Depression in a Case of Minor Head Injury: An Electrophysiological Hypothesis , 1993, Clinical EEG.

[33]  W. Hays.  Statistics for the social sciences , 1973 .

[34]  E. John,et al.  Neurometrics: computer-assisted differential diagnosis of brain dysfunctions. , 1988, Science.

[35]  R. Chabot,et al.  Sensitivity and Specificity of QEEG in Children with Attention Deficit or Specific Developmental Learning Disorders , 1996, Clinical EEG.

[36]  R. Thatcher,et al.  BIOPHYSICAL LINKAGE BETWEEN MRI AND EEC AMPLITUDE IN TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY , 1998, NeuroImage.

[37]  S S Fox,et al.  Duplication of Evoked Potential Waveform by Curve of Probability of Firing of a Single Cell , 1965, Science.

[38]  M. A. Hamilton-Bruce,et al.  Interoperator variability in quantitative electroencephalography. , 1991, Clinical and experimental neurology.

[39]  R. Elul.  Gaussian Behavior of the Electroencephalogram: Changes during Performance of Mental Task , 1969, Science.

[40]  E. John,et al.  QEEG and Traumatic Brain Injury: Rebuttal of the American Academy of Neurology 1997 Report by the EEG and Clinical Neuroscience Society , 1999, Clinical EEG.

[41]  M. Scholz,et al.  [Automatic (computer-assisted) EEG analysis in comparison with visual EEG analysis in patients following minor cranio-cerebral trauma (a follow-up study)]. , 1992, EEG-EMG Zeitschrift fur Elektroenzephalographie, Elektromyographie und verwandte Gebiete.

[42]  J. Adams,et al.  Diffuse axonal injury in head injury: Definition, diagnosis and grading , 1989, Histopathology.

[43]  E. John,et al.  Electroencephalography: Basic Principles and Applications , 2001 .

[44]  E. John,et al.  Neurometric evaluation of learning disabled children. , 1981, The International journal of neuroscience.

[45]  J. Linnett,et al.  Quantum mechanics , 1975, Nature.

[46]  Robert W. Thatcher,et al.  NORMATIVE EEG DATABASES AND EEG BIOFEEDBACK , 1998 .

[47]  Gerald Kaiser,et al.  A Friendly Guide to Wavelets , 1994 .

[48]  F. Gabreëls,et al.  The utility of electroencephalography and cerebral computed tomography in children with mild and moderately severe closed head injuries. , 1994, Neuropediatrics.