Cargando…
Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods
Speech frequency following responses (sFFRs) are increasingly used in translational auditory research. Statistically-based automated sFFR detection could aid response identification and provide a basis for stopping rules when recording responses in clinical and/or research applications. In this brie...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8869319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35200259 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/audiolres12010010 |
_version_ | 1784656469586608128 |
---|---|
author | Cheng, Fan-Yin Smith, Spencer |
author_facet | Cheng, Fan-Yin Smith, Spencer |
author_sort | Cheng, Fan-Yin |
collection | PubMed |
description | Speech frequency following responses (sFFRs) are increasingly used in translational auditory research. Statistically-based automated sFFR detection could aid response identification and provide a basis for stopping rules when recording responses in clinical and/or research applications. In this brief report, sFFRs were measured from 18 normal hearing adult listeners in quiet and speech-shaped noise. Two statistically-based automated response detection methods, the F-test and Hotelling’s T(2) (HT(2)) test, were compared based on detection accuracy and test time. Similar detection accuracy across statistical tests and conditions was observed, although the HT(2) test time was less variable. These findings suggest that automated sFFR detection is robust for responses recorded in quiet and speech-shaped noise using either the F-test or HT(2) test. Future studies evaluating test performance with different stimuli and maskers are warranted to determine if the interchangeability of test performance extends to these conditions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8869319 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88693192022-02-25 Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods Cheng, Fan-Yin Smith, Spencer Audiol Res Brief Report Speech frequency following responses (sFFRs) are increasingly used in translational auditory research. Statistically-based automated sFFR detection could aid response identification and provide a basis for stopping rules when recording responses in clinical and/or research applications. In this brief report, sFFRs were measured from 18 normal hearing adult listeners in quiet and speech-shaped noise. Two statistically-based automated response detection methods, the F-test and Hotelling’s T(2) (HT(2)) test, were compared based on detection accuracy and test time. Similar detection accuracy across statistical tests and conditions was observed, although the HT(2) test time was less variable. These findings suggest that automated sFFR detection is robust for responses recorded in quiet and speech-shaped noise using either the F-test or HT(2) test. Future studies evaluating test performance with different stimuli and maskers are warranted to determine if the interchangeability of test performance extends to these conditions. MDPI 2022-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8869319/ /pubmed/35200259 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/audiolres12010010 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Brief Report Cheng, Fan-Yin Smith, Spencer Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods |
title | Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods |
title_full | Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods |
title_fullStr | Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods |
title_short | Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods |
title_sort | objective detection of the speech frequency following response (sffr): a comparison of two methods |
topic | Brief Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8869319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35200259 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/audiolres12010010 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chengfanyin objectivedetectionofthespeechfrequencyfollowingresponsesffracomparisonoftwomethods AT smithspencer objectivedetectionofthespeechfrequencyfollowingresponsesffracomparisonoftwomethods |