Limits...
Waveform Similarity Analysis: A Simple Template Comparing Approach for Detecting and Quantifying Noisy Evoked Compound Action Potentials.

Potas JR, de Castro NG, Maddess T, de Souza MN - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Signals were detected and quantified using Waveform Similarity Analysis, which was compared to event detection, latency and magnitude measurements of the same signals performed by a trained observer, a process we called Trained Eye Analysis.Compared to the trained eye, Waveform Similarity Analysis is automatic, objective, does not rely on the observer to identify and/or measure peaks, and can detect small clustered events even when signal-to-noise ratio is poor.Waveform Similarity Analysis provides a simple, reliable and convenient approach to quantify latencies and magnitudes of complex waveforms and therefore serves as a useful tool for studying evoked compound action potentials in neural regeneration studies.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neuroscience, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Medical School, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

ABSTRACT
Experimental electrophysiological assessment of evoked responses from regenerating nerves is challenging due to the typical complex response of events dispersed over various latencies and poor signal-to-noise ratio. Our objective was to automate the detection of compound action potential events and derive their latencies and magnitudes using a simple cross-correlation template comparison approach. For this, we developed an algorithm called Waveform Similarity Analysis. To test the algorithm, challenging signals were generated in vivo by stimulating sural and sciatic nerves, whilst recording evoked potentials at the sciatic nerve and tibialis anterior muscle, respectively, in animals recovering from sciatic nerve transection. Our template for the algorithm was generated based on responses evoked from the intact side. We also simulated noisy signals and examined the output of the Waveform Similarity Analysis algorithm with imperfect templates. Signals were detected and quantified using Waveform Similarity Analysis, which was compared to event detection, latency and magnitude measurements of the same signals performed by a trained observer, a process we called Trained Eye Analysis. The Waveform Similarity Analysis algorithm could successfully detect and quantify simple or complex responses from nerve and muscle compound action potentials of intact or regenerated nerves. Incorrectly specifying the template outperformed Trained Eye Analysis for predicting signal amplitude, but produced consistent latency errors for the simulated signals examined. Compared to the trained eye, Waveform Similarity Analysis is automatic, objective, does not rely on the observer to identify and/or measure peaks, and can detect small clustered events even when signal-to-noise ratio is poor. Waveform Similarity Analysis provides a simple, reliable and convenient approach to quantify latencies and magnitudes of complex waveforms and therefore serves as a useful tool for studying evoked compound action potentials in neural regeneration studies.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Example of event detection, latency and response magnitude of sural CNAPs derived by WSA.Row A illustrates three N10avRs (repeats are colour coded) to a 0.7 mA stimulus of an intact (A1) and regenerating (A2) nerve from the same animal, with the SN-template (see Fig 1A) superimposed (black). The cross-correlation was calculated for each instant between the SN-template and the N10avR, by sliding the SN-template trace across each N10avR. Row B illustrates the mean (black) and one standard deviation (red) of the cross-correlations calculated between SN-template and the three repeated N10avRs for an intact (B1) and a regenerating (B2) nerve of the same animal. An event was considered detected when the peaks of the mean of 3 cross-correlations was ≥ a detection threshold level (see Fig 3 for calculation of the detection threshold level). The latency for each event was given by the time of each respective mean cross-correlation peak (arrows row B) plus the 0.35 ms time lag between the onset and peak of SN-template (grey bars indicate latency correction, row A). The magnitude of each event was quantified as the peak of the mean cross-correlation for each event detected (arrows, B1 and B2), and is proportional to the energy of the event measured in arbitrary units (amplitude correction not shown). Total magnitude of each N10avR was calculated as the sum of the magnitudes of all events in N10avR (sum of all peaks indicated by arrows in B1 and B2).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4556619&req=5

pone.0136992.g002: Example of event detection, latency and response magnitude of sural CNAPs derived by WSA.Row A illustrates three N10avRs (repeats are colour coded) to a 0.7 mA stimulus of an intact (A1) and regenerating (A2) nerve from the same animal, with the SN-template (see Fig 1A) superimposed (black). The cross-correlation was calculated for each instant between the SN-template and the N10avR, by sliding the SN-template trace across each N10avR. Row B illustrates the mean (black) and one standard deviation (red) of the cross-correlations calculated between SN-template and the three repeated N10avRs for an intact (B1) and a regenerating (B2) nerve of the same animal. An event was considered detected when the peaks of the mean of 3 cross-correlations was ≥ a detection threshold level (see Fig 3 for calculation of the detection threshold level). The latency for each event was given by the time of each respective mean cross-correlation peak (arrows row B) plus the 0.35 ms time lag between the onset and peak of SN-template (grey bars indicate latency correction, row A). The magnitude of each event was quantified as the peak of the mean cross-correlation for each event detected (arrows, B1 and B2), and is proportional to the energy of the event measured in arbitrary units (amplitude correction not shown). Total magnitude of each N10avR was calculated as the sum of the magnitudes of all events in N10avR (sum of all peaks indicated by arrows in B1 and B2).

Mentions: The WSA algorithm determined the cross-correlation sequence between the response being quantified and its relevant template signal (Fig 1A or 1B). A plot containing cross-correlation peaks corresponding to the time instants of greatest similarity was produced by varying the time-lag between a nerve or muscle response and its template waveforms (Fig 2). As there were three N10avR and one M5avR generated per stimulus, the application of WSA to detect and quantify nerve and muscle CAPs were different. For nerve responses, this sequence was generated from the three N10avRs (Fig 2, row A) to produce a mean and standard deviation cross-correlation function (Fig 2, row B). Event detection and quantification for nerve responses were derived from cross-correlation function peaks where the mean was greater than 2 times the standard deviation. This detection threshold level was chosen as it detected a similar number of events as that detected by the trained eye (see Fig 3A).


Waveform Similarity Analysis: A Simple Template Comparing Approach for Detecting and Quantifying Noisy Evoked Compound Action Potentials.

Potas JR, de Castro NG, Maddess T, de Souza MN - PLoS ONE (2015)

Example of event detection, latency and response magnitude of sural CNAPs derived by WSA.Row A illustrates three N10avRs (repeats are colour coded) to a 0.7 mA stimulus of an intact (A1) and regenerating (A2) nerve from the same animal, with the SN-template (see Fig 1A) superimposed (black). The cross-correlation was calculated for each instant between the SN-template and the N10avR, by sliding the SN-template trace across each N10avR. Row B illustrates the mean (black) and one standard deviation (red) of the cross-correlations calculated between SN-template and the three repeated N10avRs for an intact (B1) and a regenerating (B2) nerve of the same animal. An event was considered detected when the peaks of the mean of 3 cross-correlations was ≥ a detection threshold level (see Fig 3 for calculation of the detection threshold level). The latency for each event was given by the time of each respective mean cross-correlation peak (arrows row B) plus the 0.35 ms time lag between the onset and peak of SN-template (grey bars indicate latency correction, row A). The magnitude of each event was quantified as the peak of the mean cross-correlation for each event detected (arrows, B1 and B2), and is proportional to the energy of the event measured in arbitrary units (amplitude correction not shown). Total magnitude of each N10avR was calculated as the sum of the magnitudes of all events in N10avR (sum of all peaks indicated by arrows in B1 and B2).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4556619&req=5

pone.0136992.g002: Example of event detection, latency and response magnitude of sural CNAPs derived by WSA.Row A illustrates three N10avRs (repeats are colour coded) to a 0.7 mA stimulus of an intact (A1) and regenerating (A2) nerve from the same animal, with the SN-template (see Fig 1A) superimposed (black). The cross-correlation was calculated for each instant between the SN-template and the N10avR, by sliding the SN-template trace across each N10avR. Row B illustrates the mean (black) and one standard deviation (red) of the cross-correlations calculated between SN-template and the three repeated N10avRs for an intact (B1) and a regenerating (B2) nerve of the same animal. An event was considered detected when the peaks of the mean of 3 cross-correlations was ≥ a detection threshold level (see Fig 3 for calculation of the detection threshold level). The latency for each event was given by the time of each respective mean cross-correlation peak (arrows row B) plus the 0.35 ms time lag between the onset and peak of SN-template (grey bars indicate latency correction, row A). The magnitude of each event was quantified as the peak of the mean cross-correlation for each event detected (arrows, B1 and B2), and is proportional to the energy of the event measured in arbitrary units (amplitude correction not shown). Total magnitude of each N10avR was calculated as the sum of the magnitudes of all events in N10avR (sum of all peaks indicated by arrows in B1 and B2).
Mentions: The WSA algorithm determined the cross-correlation sequence between the response being quantified and its relevant template signal (Fig 1A or 1B). A plot containing cross-correlation peaks corresponding to the time instants of greatest similarity was produced by varying the time-lag between a nerve or muscle response and its template waveforms (Fig 2). As there were three N10avR and one M5avR generated per stimulus, the application of WSA to detect and quantify nerve and muscle CAPs were different. For nerve responses, this sequence was generated from the three N10avRs (Fig 2, row A) to produce a mean and standard deviation cross-correlation function (Fig 2, row B). Event detection and quantification for nerve responses were derived from cross-correlation function peaks where the mean was greater than 2 times the standard deviation. This detection threshold level was chosen as it detected a similar number of events as that detected by the trained eye (see Fig 3A).

Bottom Line: Signals were detected and quantified using Waveform Similarity Analysis, which was compared to event detection, latency and magnitude measurements of the same signals performed by a trained observer, a process we called Trained Eye Analysis.Compared to the trained eye, Waveform Similarity Analysis is automatic, objective, does not rely on the observer to identify and/or measure peaks, and can detect small clustered events even when signal-to-noise ratio is poor.Waveform Similarity Analysis provides a simple, reliable and convenient approach to quantify latencies and magnitudes of complex waveforms and therefore serves as a useful tool for studying evoked compound action potentials in neural regeneration studies.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neuroscience, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Medical School, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

ABSTRACT
Experimental electrophysiological assessment of evoked responses from regenerating nerves is challenging due to the typical complex response of events dispersed over various latencies and poor signal-to-noise ratio. Our objective was to automate the detection of compound action potential events and derive their latencies and magnitudes using a simple cross-correlation template comparison approach. For this, we developed an algorithm called Waveform Similarity Analysis. To test the algorithm, challenging signals were generated in vivo by stimulating sural and sciatic nerves, whilst recording evoked potentials at the sciatic nerve and tibialis anterior muscle, respectively, in animals recovering from sciatic nerve transection. Our template for the algorithm was generated based on responses evoked from the intact side. We also simulated noisy signals and examined the output of the Waveform Similarity Analysis algorithm with imperfect templates. Signals were detected and quantified using Waveform Similarity Analysis, which was compared to event detection, latency and magnitude measurements of the same signals performed by a trained observer, a process we called Trained Eye Analysis. The Waveform Similarity Analysis algorithm could successfully detect and quantify simple or complex responses from nerve and muscle compound action potentials of intact or regenerated nerves. Incorrectly specifying the template outperformed Trained Eye Analysis for predicting signal amplitude, but produced consistent latency errors for the simulated signals examined. Compared to the trained eye, Waveform Similarity Analysis is automatic, objective, does not rely on the observer to identify and/or measure peaks, and can detect small clustered events even when signal-to-noise ratio is poor. Waveform Similarity Analysis provides a simple, reliable and convenient approach to quantify latencies and magnitudes of complex waveforms and therefore serves as a useful tool for studying evoked compound action potentials in neural regeneration studies.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus