Comparison of auditory-evoked potential detection methods using signal detection theory.

The performance of statistical evoked-potential detection methods was compared with that of human observers and among themselves by means of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. The test material was a collection of brain stem auditory-evoked responses obtained from 98 infants with 60 and 30 dB nHL clicks. The observers and the statistical methods had to discriminate these responses from control recordings obtained without acoustic stimulation. Although the observers' criteria on different days varied considerably, the discrimination capacity was more stable. The discrimination capacity depended on the observers' experience. The statistical methods tested were the correlation coefficient (CCR), the standard deviation ratio (SDR) and a new method named T2R. The most efficient detection method was T2R. For false-alarm rates of 0.01 the statistical methods were more efficient than the human observers. Signal detection theory is useful for the evaluation of evoked-potential analysis methods.

[1]  E. J. Moore.  Bases of auditory brain-stem evoked responses , 1983 .

[2]  H. A. Beagley,et al.  Signal statistics in objective auditory evoked potential (AEP) detection by the phase spectral method. , 1980, Journal of biomedical engineering.

[3]  T Allison,et al.  On-line statistical detection of average evoked potentials: application to evoked response audiometry (ERA). , 1978, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[4]  A. Burr Fontaine,et al.  The Detection of Auditory Evoked Responses Using a Matched Filter , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[5]  J. Swets,et al.  Assessment of diagnostic technologies. , 1979, Science.

[6]  L Malis,et al.  Application of phase spectral analysis for brain stem auditory evoked potential detection in normal subjects and patients with posterior fossa tumors. , 1984, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[7]  D. Dorfman,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation of parameters of signal detection theory—A direct solution , 1968, Psychometrika.

[8]  H. Schimmel.  The (�) Reference: Accuracy of Estimated Mean Components in Average Response Studies , 1967, Science.

[9]  E. Donchin,et al.  A simulation study of the efficacy of stepwise discriminant analysis in the detection and comparison of event related potentials. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[10]  R. Coppola,et al.  Signal to noise ratio and response variability measurements in single trial evoked potentials. , 1978, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[11]  E R John,et al.  Application of digital filtering and automatic peak detection to brain stem auditory evoked potential. , 1982, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[12]  Terence W. Picton,et al.  Aspects of Averaging , 1983 .

[13]  E. Keeler,et al.  Primer on certain elements of medical decision making. , 1975, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  R. Bickford,et al.  Brain stem auditory evoked potentials: the use of noise estimate. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.