English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

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