IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0259347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimized SNR-based ECAP threshold determination is comparable to the judgement of human evaluators

Author

Listed:
  • Lutz Gärtner
  • Philipp Spitzer
  • Kathrin Lauss
  • Marko Takanen
  • Thomas Lenarz
  • Sebastian Hoth

Abstract

In cochlear implant (CI) users, measurements of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) prove the functionality of the neuron-electrode interface. Objective measures, e.g., the ECAP threshold, may serve as a basis for the clinical adjustment of the device for the optimal benefit of the CI user. As for many neural responses, the threshold determination often is based on the subjective assessment of the clinical specialist, whose decision-making process could be aided by autonomous computational algorithms. To that end, we extended the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) approach for ECAP threshold determination to be applicable for FineGrain (FG) ECAP responses. The new approach takes advantage of two features: the FG stimulation paradigm with its enhanced resolution of recordings, and SNR-based ECAP threshold determination, which allows defining thresholds independently of morphology and with comparably low computational power. Pearson’s correlation coefficient r between the ECAP threshold determined by five experienced evaluators and the threshold determined with the FG-SNR algorithm was in the range of r = 0.78–0.93. Between evaluators, r was in a comparable range of 0.84–0.93. A subset of the parameters of the algorithm was varied to identify the parameters with the highest potential to improve the FG-SNR formalism in the future. The two steps with the strongest influence on the agreement between the threshold estimate of the evaluators and the algorithm were the removal of undesired frequency components (denoising of the response traces) and the exact determination of the two time windows (signal and noise and noise only).”The parameters were linked to the properties of an ECAP response, indicating how to adjust the algorithm for the automatic detection of other neurophysiological responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Lutz Gärtner & Philipp Spitzer & Kathrin Lauss & Marko Takanen & Thomas Lenarz & Sebastian Hoth, 2021. "Optimized SNR-based ECAP threshold determination is comparable to the judgement of human evaluators," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259347
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259347
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0259347&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0259347?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacqmin-Gadda, Helene & Sibillot, Solenne & Proust, Cecile & Molina, Jean-Michel & Thiebaut, Rodolphe, 2007. "Robustness of the linear mixed model to misspecified error distribution," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(10), pages 5142-5154, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baumann, Elias & Kern, Jana & Lessmann, Stefan, 2019. "Usage Continuance in Software-as-a-Service," IRTG 1792 Discussion Papers 2019-005, Humboldt University of Berlin, International Research Training Group 1792 "High Dimensional Nonstationary Time Series".
    2. Viet-Thi Tran & Mariam Mama Djima & Eugene Messou & Jocelyne Moisan & Jean-Pierre Grégoire & Didier K Ekouevi, 2018. "Avoidable workload of care for patients living with HIV infection in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire: A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Żądło Tomasz, 2017. "On Asymmetry of Prediction Errors in Small Area Estimation," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 18(3), pages 413-432, September.
    4. Warrington Nicole M. & Tilling Kate & Howe Laura D. & Paternoster Lavinia & Pennell Craig E. & Wu Yan Yan & Briollais Laurent, 2014. "Robustness of the linear mixed effects model to error distribution assumptions and the consequences for genome-wide association studies," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 13(5), pages 567-587, October.
    5. Daniel McNeish & Jeffrey R. Harring & Denis Dumas, 2023. "A multilevel structured latent curve model for disaggregating student and school contributions to learning," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 32(2), pages 545-575, June.
    6. Elisabeth Veiz & Susann-Kristin Kieslich & Julia Staab & Dirk Czesnik & Christoph Herrmann-Lingen & Thomas Meyer, 2021. "Men Show Reduced Cardiac Baroreceptor Sensitivity during Modestly Painful Electrical Stimulation of the Forearm: Exploratory Results from a Sham-Controlled Crossover Vagus Nerve Stimulation Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Katarzyna Reluga & María‐José Lombardía & Stefan Sperlich, 2023. "Simultaneous inference for linear mixed model parameters with an application to small area estimation," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 91(2), pages 193-217, August.
    8. Joshua Kosnoff & Kai Yu & Chang Liu & Bin He, 2024. "Transcranial focused ultrasound to V5 enhances human visual motion brain-computer interface by modulating feature-based attention," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Tomasz Żądło, 2017. "On Asymmetry Of Prediction Errors In Small Area Estimation," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 18(3), pages 413-432, September.
    10. Leonardo Grilli & Carla Rampichini, 2015. "Specification of random effects in multilevel models: a review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 967-976, May.
    11. Mohammadi, Raziyeh & Kazemi, Iraj, 2022. "A robust linear mixed-effects model for longitudinal data using an innovative multivariate skew-Huber distribution," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    12. Brian Francis & Jiayi Liu, 2015. "Modelling escalation in crime seriousness: a latent variable approach," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 73(2), pages 277-297, August.
    13. Jurecková, Jana & Picek, Jan & Saleh, A.K.Md. Ehsanes, 2010. "Rank tests and regression rank score tests in measurement error models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 3108-3120, December.
    14. Elias Baumann & Jana Kern & Stefan Lessmann, 2022. "Usage Continuance in Software-as-a-Service," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 149-176, February.
    15. Dimova, Rositsa B. & Markatou, Marianthi & Talal, Andrew H., 2011. "Information methods for model selection in linear mixed effects models with application to HCV data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(9), pages 2677-2697, September.
    16. Ahmed Bani-Mustafa & K. M. Matawie & C. F. Finch & Amjad Al-Nasser & Enrico Ciavolino, 2019. "Recursive residuals for linear mixed models," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 1263-1274, May.
    17. Mark Reiser & Silvia Cagnone & Junfei Zhu, 2023. "An Extended GFfit Statistic Defined on Orthogonal Components of Pearson’s Chi-Square," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(1), pages 208-240, March.
    18. Guangrui Guo, 2017. "Demystifying variance in performance: A longitudinal multilevel perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 1327-1342, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0259347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.