Test-retest reliability of chemosensory evoked potentials

Research output: Contribution to journalResearch articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • Antje Welge-Lüssen - , University of Basel, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (Author)
  • Claudia Wille - , Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (Author)
  • Bertold Renner - , Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (Author)
  • Gerd Kobal - , Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (Author)

Abstract

This study investigated the test-retest reliability of chemosensory eventrelated potentials in humans. Olfactory event-related potentials and chemosomatosensory event-related potentials were evaluated in 20 healthy, normosmic subjects. Phenyl ethyl alcohol (PEA, 40% v/v) and H2S (4 ppm) served as olfactory stimuli whereas CO2 (60% v/v) was the chemosomatosensory stimulus. Fifteen stimuli of each compound were applied to each nostril. Identical stimulation sequences were used during three test sessions. Sessions 1 and 2 were separated by a mean of 6.8 days; sessions 2 and 3 by 12.5 days. Electroencephalographic recordings were made from Fz, Cz, Pz, C3, and C4. Amplitudes and latencies of P1, N1, P2, N2, and P3 were measured. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated to test the test-retest reliability, and the general linear model examined the differences. Most correlations ranged between 0.4 < r < 0.75. Latencies correlated significantly better (P = 0.008) between sessions than amplitudes, even though with CO2 stimulus amplitudes correlated significantly better than with PEA (P = 0.006) or H2S (P = 0.003). No differences arose between measurements from different nostrils for any stimulus. Chemosensory event-related potentials show good test-retest reliability. Carbon dioxide amplitudes exhibit better signal-to-noise ratios than PEA or H2S amplitudes. Chemosensory event-related potentials are a clinically valuable objective and are reproducible.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)135-142
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Neurophysiology
Volume20
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2003
Peer-reviewedYes

External IDs

PubMed 12766687
ORCID /0000-0003-0845-6793/work/139025192

Keywords

Keywords

  • Chemosensory evoked potentials, Test-retest reliability