Auditory evoked potentials for monitoring during anaesthesia: a study of data quality.

UNLABELLED: The auditory evoked potential termed the middle latency response (MLR) has been suggested as an indicator of adequacy of anaesthesia during surgery. However, the response is small and must be extracted from high levels of background noise. A key consideration in using the MLR for clinical monitoring is whether data quality is sufficient to detect small changes. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality of the MLR recorded during anaesthesia, as a rigorous analysis of data quality is lacking in many studies. MLR recordings from patients sedated in intensive care after cardiac surgery were compared to recordings from a reference group of young volunteers with normal hearing. Data quality was measured with the F(sp) parameter. A bootstrap analysis was used to measure statistical response presence and to detect within-subject changes during clinical anaesthesia. Noise levels were high in the normative group probably due to myogenic and EEG activity. With 5 Hz click stimulation, MLR presence in the normative group was below 30%. Response presence improved using stimulation paradigms with chirps or maximum length sequences and reached 100% with a combination of maximum length sequences and chirps. F(sp) values generally improved during anaesthesia as noise levels reduced and MLR presence was 100% for MLS click stimulation. Changes in the MLR amplitude with propofol infusion rate were small. Some within-subject changes in MLR amplitude were detected using the bootstrap analysis, but 100% detection was not possible. CONCLUSION: Obtaining good quality MLR data in awake subjects is challenging. Data quality improves during clinical anaesthesia and with advanced stimulation methods, but reliable detection of changes in the MLR for clinical monitoring remains a challenge.

Analysis of the quality of wrist movement during a simple tracking task.

Objective assessment of stroke-patients' ability to control arm movements is vital for evidence-based therapy and progress monitoring. This study compares three different indices to quantify the quality of wrist movement during a task involving tracking a target on a screen. Each method is assessed in terms of agreement between assessors (Bland and Altman limits of agreement); repeatability of readings by the same assessor (reliability coefficient); and external validity on data collected from a sample of people with impaired upper limb function and an age matched unimpaired control group. The three indices were the root mean square difference between the wrist movement and the target signal, the cross correlation between these two signals, and an estimate of the signal-to-noise ratio in the wrist movement. External validity was investigated by calculating the correlation between each measure for wrist movement, and upper limb function assessed by the action research arm test. The results of the Bland and Altman limits of agreement show that all indices were similar in performance. The cross correlation had the highest reliability coefficient for the impaired group. In terms of external validity, the cross correlation and signal-to-noise indices showed the strongest association with functional performance and may thus be the more relevant for future clinical investigations.