ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Online Signal-to-Noise Management for Evoked Potentials-Assessing and Explaining Response Quality.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Evoked potentials (EPs) are an elegant, non-invasive, and reliable technique for assessing the functional integrity of neural pathways. They are, however, often limited by the difficulty and time needed to consistently distinguish signal from noise. (2) Methods: We have recently proposed a novel technique based on spectral domain evoked-to-background ratio (EBR) that enables fast data acquisition with online feedback about actual signal quality utilizing state of the art analog-to-digital conversion. Furthermore, we have developed a novel model-based signal-to-noise management concept allowing for suppression of biological and technical interference (swallowing, stimulation artifacts, electropolarization, and powerline potentials) and for online assessment of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for EPs. In this work, we experimentally confirmed this concept in ten healthy volunteers by investigating cortical EPs and high-frequency oscillations (HFOs) following median nerve stimulation. (3) Results: Both mathematical model and human data demonstrate that spectral target-band EBR governs the progress in SNR with increasing sweep count. For cortical EPs, SNR exceeded 10 dB beyond 90 averages in all participants. An SNR > 20 dB documented excellent signal quality and reproducibility. For HFOs, the SNR shifted to lower values by 12 dB, displaying pronounced individual variation, however, with smaller variation of HFO-band background activity (1.9 vs. 7.6 dB between the 25% and 75% percentile). Thus, individual HFO responses are more important for actual signal extraction compared to background activity. In subjects displaying a high HFO amplitude, reproducibility was confirmed for less than 1000 sweeps. (4) Conclusions: The present investigations confirm that individual EBR is the major factor defining SNR. Background noise can be reduced to a negligible level. Online assessment of background activity will allow for the most accurate moment-to-moment visualization of raw signal quality. This will facilitate termination of the data acquisition and may be based on quantified signal quality rather than predefined sweep count.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.