↓ Skip to main content

A New Statistical Approach for the Evaluation of Gap-prepulse Inhibition of the Acoustic Startle Reflex (GPIAS) for Tinnitus Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A New Statistical Approach for the Evaluation of Gap-prepulse Inhibition of the Acoustic Startle Reflex (GPIAS) for Tinnitus Assessment
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00198
Pubmed ID
Authors

Achim Schilling, Patrick Krauss, Richard Gerum, Claus Metzner, Konstantin Tziridis, Holger Schulze

Abstract

Background: An increasingly used behavioral paradigm for the objective assessment of a possible tinnitus percept in animal models has been proposed by Turner and coworkers in 2006. It is based on gap-prepulse inhibition (PPI) of the acoustic startle reflex (ASR) and usually referred to as GPIAS. As it does not require conditioning it became the method of choice to study neuroplastic phenomena associated with the development of tinnitus. Objective: It is still controversial if GPIAS is really appropriate for tinnitus screening, as the hypothesis that a tinnitus percept impairs the gap detection ability ("filling-in interpretation" is still questioned. Furthermore, a wide range of criteria for positive tinnitus detection in GPIAS have been used across different laboratories and there still is no consensus on a best practice for statistical evaluation of GPIAS results. Current approaches are often based on simple averaging of measured PPI values and comparisons on a population level without the possibility to perform valid statistics on the level of the single animal. Methods: A total number of 32 animals were measured using the standard GPIAS paradigm with varying number of measurement repetitions. Based on this data further statistical considerations were performed. Results: We here present a new statistical approach to overcome the methodological limitations of GPIAS. In a first step we show that ASR amplitudes are not normally distributed. Next we estimate the distribution of the measured PPI values by exploiting the full combinatorial power of all measured ASR amplitudes. We demonstrate that the amplitude ratios (1-PPI) are approximately lognormally distributed, allowing for parametrical testing of the logarithmized values and present a new statistical approach allowing for a valid and reliable statistical assessment of PPI changes in GPIAS. Conclusion: Based on our statistical approach we recommend using a constant criterion, which does not systematically depend on the number of measurement repetitions, in order to divide animals into a tinnitus and a non-tinnitus group. In particular, we recommend using a constant threshold based on the effect size as criterion, as the effect size, in contrast to the p-value, does not systematically depend on the number of measurement repetitions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 14 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Engineering 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Physics and Astronomy 2 5%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 12 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,917,778
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,429
of 3,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,327
of 327,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#66
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.