330
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Technical Report

Objective detection of auditory steady-state evoked potentials based on mutual information

&
Pages 313-319 | Received 15 Apr 2015, Accepted 04 Jan 2016, Published online: 29 Feb 2016

References

  • Aiken S.J. & Picton T.W. 2008. Envelope and spectral frequency-following responses to vowel sounds. Hear Res, 245, 35–47.
  • American Academy of Pediatrics J.C.o.I.H. 2007. Position Statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and identification. Pediatrics, 120, 898–921.
  • Bhagat S.P. 2008. The effects of monotic and dichotic interference tones on 40 Hz auditory steady-state responses in normal-hearing adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 19, 101–119.
  • Bidelman G.M. 2014. Objective information-theoretic algorithm for detecting brainstem evoked responses to complex stimuli. J Am Acad Audiol, 25, 711–722.
  • Bidelman G.M. & Krishnan A. 2010. Effects of reverberation on brainstem representation of speech in musicians and non-musicians. Brain Res, 1355, 112–125.
  • Bidelman G.M., Moreno S. & Alain C. 2013. Tracing the emergence of categorical speech perception in the human auditory system. Neuroimage, 79, 201–212.
  • Bogaerts S., Clements J.D., Sullivan J.M. & Oleskevich S. 2009. Automated threshold detection for auditory brainstem responses: Comparison with visual estimation in a stem cell transplantation study. BMC Neurosci, 10, 1–7.
  • Champlin C.A. 1992. Methods for detecting auditory steady-state potentials recorded from humans. Hear Res, 58, 63–69.
  • Cone-Wesson B., Dowell R.C., Tomlin D., Rance G. & Ming W.J. 2002. The auditory steady-state response: comparisons with the auditory brainstem response. J Am Acad Audiol, 13, 173–187.
  • Dobie R.A. & Wilson M.J. 1989. Analysis of auditory evoked potentials by magnitude-squared coherence. Ear Hear, 10, 2–13.
  • Dobie R.A. & Wilson M.J. 1996. A comparison of t test, F test, and coherence methods of detecting steady-state auditory-evoked potentials, distortion-product otoacoustic emissions, or other sinusoids. J Acoust Soc Am, 100, 2236–2246.
  • Efron B. & Tibshirani R. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.
  • Elliott A.C. & Hynan L.S. 2011. A SAS® macro implementation of a multiple comparison post hoc test for a Kruskal–Wallis analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 102, 75–80.
  • Jeng F.C., Hu J., Dickman B., Lin C.Y., Lin C.D., et al. 2011. Evaluation of two algorithms for detecting human frequency-following responses to voice pitch. Int J Audiol, 50, 14–26.
  • John M.S. & Picton T.W. 2000. MASTER: A Windows program for recording multiple auditory steady-state responses. Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 61, 125–150.
  • Johnson T.A. & Brown C.J. 2005. Threshold prediction using the auditory steady-state response and the tone burst auditory brain stem response: a within-subject comparison. Ear Hear, 26, 559–576.
  • Kraus N. & Banai K. 2007. Auditory-processing malleability: Focus on language and music. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 16, 105–110.
  • Lins O.G., Picton P.E., Picton T.W., Champagn S.C. & Durieux-Smith A. 1995. Auditory steady-state responses to tones amplitude-modulated at 80-110 Hz. J Acoust Soc Am, 97, 3051–3063.
  • Oxenham A.J., Bernstein J.G.W. & Penagos H. 2004. Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 101, 1421–1425.
  • Picton T.W., Durieux-Smith A., Champagne S.C., Whittingham J., Moran L.M., et al. 1998. Objective evaluation of aided threhsolds using auditory steady-state responses. Journal of American Academy of Audiology, 9, 315–331.
  • Stroebel D., Swanepoel W. & Groenewald E. 2007. Aided auditory steady-state responses in infants. Int J Audiol, 46, 287–292.
  • Sturzebecher E. & Cebulla M. 2013. Automated auditory response detection: Improvement of the statistical test strategy. Int J Audiol, 52, 861–864.
  • Vidler M. & Parker D. 2004. Auditory brainstem response threshold estimation: Subjective threshold estimation by experienced clinicians in a computer simulation of a clinical test. Int J Audiol, 43, 417–429.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.