Next Article in Journal
Correction: Martini, A.; Cassina, M. Victor A. McKusick, the “Father of Medical Genetics”. Audiol. Res. 2021, 11, 636–638
Previous Article in Journal
Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Audiology Research in 2021
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods

Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Audiol. Res. 2022, 12(1), 89-94; https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres12010010
Submission received: 23 December 2021 / Revised: 22 January 2022 / Accepted: 24 January 2022 / Published: 28 January 2022

Abstract

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 T2 (HT2) test, were compared based on detection accuracy and test time. Similar detection accuracy across statistical tests and conditions was observed, although the HT2 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 HT2 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.
Keywords: frequency following response (FFR); auditory electrophysiology; Hotelling’s T2 test; F-test; objective detection frequency following response (FFR); auditory electrophysiology; Hotelling’s T2 test; F-test; objective detection

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheng, F.-Y.; Smith, S. Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods. Audiol. Res. 2022, 12, 89-94. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres12010010

AMA Style

Cheng F-Y, Smith S. Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods. Audiology Research. 2022; 12(1):89-94. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres12010010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheng, Fan-Yin, and Spencer Smith. 2022. "Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods" Audiology Research 12, no. 1: 89-94. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres12010010

APA Style

Cheng, F.-Y., & Smith, S. (2022). Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods. Audiology Research, 12(1), 89-94. https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres12010010

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop