Toward an Individualized Neural Assessment of Receptive Language in Children.
Selene Petit, Nicholas A Badcock, Tijl Grootswagers and 8 others
PMID 32640176WHAT IT FOUND
Standard EEG methods detected brain responses to word meaning in only about half of the children.
A complex pattern-analysis method raised this detection rate to 88% for the high-end research system, but the low-cost portable headset failed to show similar improvement.
Key findings
01Traditional EEG analysis detected semantic processing in approximately half of the neurotypical children in both experiments.
02Multivariate pattern analysis increased detection rates to 88% in the research-grade system but only 38% in the portable headset.
03The portable headset recorded waveforms similar in shape to the research system but with numerically lower amplitude and poorer reliability.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study only included neurotypical children with normal language abilities, so it does not prove these methods work for the intended target population of non-speaking or minimally-verbal children. The sample sizes were very small (15 and 16 children), which limits the certainty of the detection rates. The portable headset had lower reliability and failed to show the benefits of the advanced analysis methods that worked for the research system. The advanced analysis method used for the best results (MVPA) does not specify where or when in the brain the processing happened, making it hard to interpret clinically.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that a portable EEG headset can reliably measure language comprehension in individual patients. The study found that the portable device performed poorly compared to research-grade equipment, especially when using the advanced analysis methods that yielded the best results.