Variability and effect sizes of intracranial current source density estimations during pain: Systematic review, experimental findings, and future perspectives

Völker, Juan Manuel; Arguissain, Federico; Andersen, Ole Kæseler; Manresa, José Biurrun

doi:10.1002/hbm.25380

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, the ICC value for correct words at 0 dB in sentences is 0.18, which would be classified as ‘poor’ reliability using current arbitrary scales. However, it is not appropriate to treat reliability results as dichotomous variables or as the outcome of a hypothesis test, and the measurement error should be considered (Biurrun Manresa et al, 2014; Bland & Altman, 1999; Völker et al, 2021). In this regard, the BA plot (Figure 2b) shows that the maximum difference for most of the observations (95%) between two sessions is approximately 7% (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and reliability of self‐reported and neural measures of listening effort

Mohammadi,

Østergaard,

Graversen

et al. 2023

Eur J of Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Listening effort can be defined as a measure of cognitive resources used by listeners to perform a listening task. Various methods have been proposed to measure this effort, yet their reliability remains unestablished, a crucial step before their application in research or clinical settings. This study encompassed 32 participants undertaking speech‐in‐noise tasks across two sessions, approximately a week apart. They listened to sentences and word lists at varying signal‐to‐noise ratios (SNRs) (−9, −6, −3 and 0 dB), then retaining them for roughly 3 s. We evaluated the test–retest reliability of self‐reported effort ratings, theta (4–7 Hz) and alpha (8–13 Hz) oscillatory power, suggested previously as neural markers of listening effort. Additionally, we examined the reliability of correct word percentages. Both relative and absolute reliability were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman analysis. We also computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC). Our findings indicated heightened frontal midline theta power for word lists compared to sentences during the retention phase under high SNRs (0 dB, −3 dB), likely indicating a greater memory load for word lists. We observed SNR's impact on alpha power in the right central region during the listening phase and frontal theta power during the retention phase in sentences. Overall, the reliability analysis demonstrated satisfactory between‐session variability for correct words and effort ratings. However, neural measures (frontal midline theta power and right central alpha power) displayed substantial variability, even though group‐level outcomes appeared consistent across sessions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and reliability of self‐reported and neural measures of listening effort

Mohammadi,

Østergaard,

Graversen

et al. 2023

Eur J of Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, the ICC value for correct words at 0 dB in sentences is 0.18, which would be classified as 'poor' reliability using current arbitrary scales. However, it is not appropriate to treat reliability results as dichotomous variables or as the outcome of a hypothesis test, and the measurement error should be considered (Biurrun Manresa et al, 2014;Bland & Altman, 1999;Völker et al, 2021). In this regard, the BA plot (Figure 2b) shows that the maximum difference for most of the observations (95%) between two sessions is approximately 7% (i.e.…”

Section: The Reliability Of the Behavioural Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and reliability of self-reported and neural measures of listening effort

Mohammadi

Østergaard

Graversen

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Listening effort can be defined as a measure of cognitive resources used by listeners to perform a listening task. Several methods have been proposed to assess listening effort, but the reliability of these methods has not yet been thoroughly established, which is necessary before using them in research or clinical settings. This study included 32 participants who performed speech-in-noise tasks in two sessions (separated approx. 1 week apart) by listening to Sentences and Word lists presented at different signal-to-noise ratios (-9, -6, -3, and 0 dB). We assessed the test-retest reliability of the self-reported measure of listening effort and frontal midline theta (Fmθ) power, which has been proposed as a neural correlate of listening effort. The reliability of the percentage of correct words was also examined. Relative and absolute reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis, respectively. The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the smallest detectable change (SDC) were also assessed. Overall, the reliability analysis revealed an acceptable between-session variability for the correct words and effort rating. However, Fmθ power showed high variability, which brings into question its use as a reliable correlate of listening effort.

show abstract

Variability and effect sizes of intracranial current source density estimations during pain: Systematic review, experimental findings, and future perspectives

Völker

Arguissain

Andersen

et al. 2021

Human Brain Mapping

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pain arises from the integration of sensory and cognitive processes in the brain, resulting in specific patterns of neural oscillations that can be characterized by measuring electrical brain activity. Current source density (CSD) estimation from lowresolution brain electromagnetic tomography (LORETA) and its standardized (sLORETA) and exact (eLORETA) variants, is a common approach to identify the spatiotemporal dynamics of the brain sources in physiological and pathological painrelated conditions. However, there is no consensus on the magnitude and variability of clinically or experimentally relevant effects for CSD estimations. Here, we systematically examined reports of sample size calculations and effect size estimations in all studies that included the keywords pain, and LORETA, sLORETA, or eLORETA in Scopus and PubMed. We also assessed the reliability of LORETA CSD estimations during non-painful and painful conditions to estimate hypothetical sample sizes for future experiments using CSD estimations. We found that none of the studies included in the systematic review reported sample size calculations, and less than 20% reported measures of central tendency and dispersion, which are necessary to estimate effect sizes. Based on these data and our experimental results, we determined that sample sizes commonly used in pain studies using CSD estimations are suitable to detect medium and large effect sizes in crossover designs and only large effects in parallel designs. These results provide a comprehensive summary of the effect sizes observed using LORETA in pain research, and this information can be used by clinicians and researchers to improve settings and designs of future pain studies.

show abstract

Variability and effect sizes of intracranial current source density estimations during pain: Systematic review, experimental findings, and future perspectives

Cited by 7 publications

References 86 publications

Validity and reliability of self‐reported and neural measures of listening effort

Validity and reliability of self‐reported and neural measures of listening effort

Validity and reliability of self-reported and neural measures of listening effort

Variability and effect sizes of intracranial current source density estimations during pain: Systematic review, experimental findings, and future perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About