组内相关
神经血管束
置信区间
可靠性(半导体)
医学
经颅多普勒
变异系数
标准误差
物理医学与康复
听力学
物理疗法
统计
外科
内科学
心理测量学
数学
临床心理学
量子力学
物理
功率(物理)
作者
Joel S. Burma,Rowan K. Van Roessel,Ibukunoluwa K. Oni,Jeff F. Dunn,Jonathan D. Smirl
标识
DOI:10.1177/0271678x221084400
摘要
Standard practices for quantifying neurovascular coupling (NVC) with transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD) require participants to complete one-to-ten repetitive trials. However, limited empirical evidence exists regarding how the number of trials completed influences the validity and reliability of temporally derived NVC metrics. Secondary analyses was performed on 60 young healthy participants (30 females/30 males) who completed eight cyclical eyes-closed (20-seconds), eyes-open (40-seconds) NVC trials, using the “Where’s Waldo?” visual paradigm. TCD data was obtained in posterior and middle cerebral arteries (PCA and MCA, respectively). The within-day (n = 11) and between-day ( n = 17) reliability were assessed at seven- and three-time points, respectively. Repeat testing from the reliability aims were also used for the concurrent validity analysis ( n = 160). PCA metrics (i.e., baseline, peak, percent increase, and area-under-the-curve) demonstrated five trials produced excellent intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 95% confidence intervals for validity and within-day reliability (>0.900), whereas between-day reliability was good-to-excellent (>0.750). Likewise, 95% confidence intervals for coefficient of variation (CoV) measures ranged from acceptable (<20%) to excellent (<5%) with five-or-more trials. Employing fewer than five trials produced poor/unacceptable ICC and CoV metrics. Future NVC, TCD-based research should therefore have participants complete a minimum of five trials when quantifying the NVC response with TCD via a “ Where’s Waldo?” paradigm.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI