Objective Response Detection in an Electroencephalogram During Somatosensory Stimulation

AbstractTechniques for objective response detection aim to identify the presence of evoked potentials based purely on statistical principles. They have been shown to be potentially more sensitive than the conventional approach of subjective evaluation by experienced clinicians and could be of great clinical use. Three such techniques to detect changes in an electroencephalogram (EEG) synchronous with the stimuli, namely, magnitude-squared coherence (MSC), the phase-synchrony measure (PSM) and the spectral F test (SFT) were applied to EEG signals of 12 normal subjects under conventional somatosensory pulse stimulation to the tibial nerve. The SFT, which uses only the power spectrum, showed the poorest performance, while the PSM, based only on the phase spectrum, gave results almost as good as those of the MSC, which uses both phase and power spectra. With the latter two techniques, stimulus responses were evident in the frequency range of 20–80 Hz in all subjects after 200 stimuli (5 Hz stimulus frequency), whereas for visual recognition at least 500 stimuli are usually applied. Based on these results and on simulations, the phase-based techniques appear promising for the automated detection and monitoring of somatosensory evoked potentials. © 2000 Biomedical Engineering Society. PAC00: 8719Nn, 8719Bb

[1]  Barrie W. Jervis,et al.  A Fundamental Investigation of the Composition of Auditory Evoked Potentials , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  S M Mason,et al.  Automated system for screening hearing using the auditory brainstem response. , 1988, British journal of audiology.

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

[4]  A. Achim,et al.  Signal detection in averaged evoked potentials: Monte Carlo comparison of the sensitivity of different methods. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[5]  Antonio Fernando Catelli Infantosi,et al.  Comparison of techniques for objective identification of EEG responses to somatosensitive stimulation , 1996, Proceedings of 18th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[6]  S Matsuoka,et al.  IFCN recommended standards for short latency somatosensory evoked potentials. Report of an IFCN committee. International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1994, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[7]  R A Dobie,et al.  A comparison of t test, F test, and coherence methods of detecting steady-state auditory-evoked potentials, distortion-product otoacoustic emissions, or other sinusoids. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  F. H. Lopes da Silva,et al.  Event-related potentials: methodology and quantification , 1998 .

[9]  C. Yingling,et al.  Steady-state analysis of somatosensory evoked potentials. , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[10]  P. Husar,et al.  A periodogram-based method for the detection of steady-state visually evoked potentials , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[11]  A.V. Oppenheim,et al.  The importance of phase in signals , 1980, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[12]  J. Jerger,et al.  Phase coherence of the middle-latency response in the elderly. , 1992, Scandinavian audiology.

[13]  K. Mardia.  Statistics of Directional Data , 1972 .

[14]  R A Dobie,et al.  Analysis of auditory evoked potentials by magnitude-squared coherence. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[15]  R A Zappulla,et al.  Response threshold determination of the brain stem auditory evoked response: a comparison of the phase versus magnitude derived from the fast Fourier transform. , 1985, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[16]  B M Sayers,et al.  Pattern analysis of auditory-evoked EEG potentials. , 1979, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[17]  R. Dobie,et al.  Optimal smoothing of coherence estimates. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[18]  R A Dobie,et al.  Objective versus human observer detection of 40-Hz auditory-evoked potentials. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  T Fuse,et al.  An application of phase spectral analysis to amplitude-modulation following response. , 1993, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[20]  Allan H. Ropper,et al.  Evoked potentials in clinical medicine (second of two parts). , 1982 .

[21]  E. Lehmann,et al.  Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks , 1976 .

[22]  J. Victor,et al.  A new statistic for steady-state evoked potentials. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[23]  Flávio Codeço Coelho,et al.  Testing recruitment in the EEG under repetitive photo stimulation using frequency-domain approaches , 1995, Proceedings of 17th International Conference of the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[24]  R A Dobie,et al.  Objective detection of 40 Hz auditory evoked potentials: phase coherence vs. magnitude-squared coherence. , 1994, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[25]  Karl E. Misulis,et al.  Spehlmann's evoked potential primer : visual, auditory, and somatosensory evoked potentials in clinical diagnosis. , 1994 .

[26]  B. MCA. SAVERS,et al.  The Mechanism of Auditory Evoked EEG Responses , 1974, Nature.

[27]  J. Bendat,et al.  Random Data: Analysis and Measurement Procedures , 1971 .

[28]  K. Doyle,et al.  Comparison of newborn hearing screening by transient otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem response using ALGO-2. , 1998, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[29]  T. Suzuki,et al.  A study on the phase spectral analysis of middle latency response and 40-Hz event-related potential in central nervous system disorders. , 1994, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.