Comparing statistics for objective detection of transient and steady-state evoked responses in newborns

References

• Bishop C.M. (2006). Introduction. In: M. Jordan, J. Kleinberg, S. Bernhard (eds.), Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning: 1st ed. New York: Springer, pp. 45.
   Google Scholar
• Cebulla M., Sturzebecher E. & Wernecke K.D. 2000. Objective detection of auditory brainstem potentials: Comparison of statistical test in the time and frequency domains. Scand Audiol, 29, 44–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cebulla M., Sturzebecher E. & Wernecke K.D. 2001. Objective detection of the amplitude modulation following response (AMFR). Audiology, 40(5), 245–252.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Champlin C.A. 1992. Methods for detecting auditory steady-state potentials recorded from humans. Hear Res, 58, 63–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly J.L., Carron J.D. & Roark S.D. 2005. Universal newborn hearing screening: Are we achieving the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) objectives?Laryngoscope, 115, 232–236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLong E.R., DeLong D.M. & Clarke-Pearson D.L. 1988. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44, 837–845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobie R.A. & Wilson M.J. 1993. Objective response detection in the frequency domain. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol, 88, 516–524.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dobie R.A. & Wilson M.J. 1994a. Phase weighting: A method to improve objective detection of steady-state evoked potentials. Hear Res, 79, 94–98.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dobie R.A. & Wilson M.J. 1994b. Objective detection of 40-Hz auditory evoked potentials: Phase coherence vs. magnitude-squared coherence. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol, 92, 405–413.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elberling C. & Don M. 1984. Quality estimation of auditory brainstem responses. Scand Audiol, 13, 187–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajian-Tilaki K.O., Hanley J.A., Joseph L. & Collet J.P. 1997. A comparison of parametric and nonparametric approaches to ROC analysis of quantitative diagnostic test. Med Decis Making, 17(1), 94–102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hastie T., Tibshirani R. & Friedman J. 2009. Model Inference and Averaging. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, pp. 261–293.
   Google Scholar
• Jimenez J., Carballo J., Riera J. & Pérez-Abalo M.C. 1988. Comparación de la eficiencia diagnostica de diferentes medidas de normalidad para el PEATC. Rev. Cub. Ciencias Biológicas, 19, 139–141.
   Google Scholar
• Mehl A.L. & Thomson V. 1998. Newborn hearing screening. The great omission. Pediatrics, 101, 4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mijares E., Herrera D., Santos E., Gaya J.A., Pérez-Abalo M.C.et al. 2011. Cribado auditivo neonatal con potenciales evocados auditivos de estado estable a múltiples frecuencias. Acta Otorrinolaringológica Española, 62 (2), 87–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Montgomery D.C. 2008. Simple comparative experiments. In: J. Welter & J. Foxman (eds.) Design and Analysis of Experiments: 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 25–27.
   Google Scholar
• Norton S.J., Gorga M.P. & Widen J.E. 2000. Identification of neonatal hearing impairment: Evaluation of transient evoked otoacoustic emission, distortion product otoacoustic emission, and auditory brain stem response test performance. Ear Hear, 21, 508–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picton T.W., Dimitrijevic A., Sasha M. & Van Roon. 2001. The use of phase in the detection of auditory steady-state response. Clin Neurophysiol, 112, 1698–1711.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picton T.W., Linden R.D., Hamel G. & Maru J.T. 1983. Aspects of averaging. Seminars in Hearing, 4, 324–340.
   Google Scholar
• Picton T.W., Vajsar J., Rodriguez R. & Campbell K.B. 1987. Reliability estimates for steady-state evoked potentials. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol, 68, 119–131.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Savio G., Mijares E., Perez-Abalo M.C., Vega M., Lage C.et al. 2007. Eficiencia de la detección automática de potenciales evocados auditivos de estado estable a múltiples frecuencias evaluada mediante la metodología ROC. Rev Logop Fon Audiol, 27(1), 12–23.
   Google Scholar
• Savio G., Pérez-Abalo M.C., Gaya J., Hernández O. & Mijares E. 2006. Test accuracy and prognostic validity of multiple auditory steady-state responses for target hearing screening. Int J Audiol, 45, 109–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savio G. & Pérez-Abalo M.C. 2007. The auditory steady-state response: Generation, recording, and clinical application. In: G. Rance(ed.), ASSRs and Hearing Screening. San Diego: Plural Publishing. pp. 185–199.
   Google Scholar
• Sturzebecher E. & Cebulla M. 1997. Objective detection of auditory evoked potentials: Comparison of several statistical tests in the frequency domain on the basis of near threshold ABR data. Scand Audiol, 26; 7–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sturzebecher E., Cebulla M. & Wernecke K.D. 1999. Objective response detection in the frequency domain: comparison of several q-sample tests. Audiology Neurotology, 4, 2–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Valdés J.L., Pérez-Abalo M.C., Martín V., Savio G., Sierra C.et al. 1997. Comparison of statistical indicators for the automatic detection of 80 Hz auditory steady state response. Ear Hear, 18, 420–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valdés M., Bobes M., Pérez-Abalo M.C., Perera M., Carballo J.A. & Valdés P. 1987. Comparison of auditory-evoked potential detection methods using signal detection theory. Audiol, 722, 166–178.
   Google Scholar
• Victor J.D. & Mast J. 1991. A new statistic for steady-state evoked potentials. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol, 78, 378–388.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vohr B.R., Carty L.M., Moore P.E. & Letourneau K. 1998. The Rhode Island hearing assessment program: Experience with state-wide hearing screening (1993–1996). Pediatrics, 133, 353–357.
   Google Scholar