On the Agreement between Manual and Automated Methods for Single-Trial Detection and Estimation of Features from Event-Related Potentials

The agreement between humans and algorithms on whether an event-related potential (ERP) is present or not and the level of variation in the estimated values of its relevant features are largely unknown. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the categorical and quantitative agreement between manual and automated methods for single-trial detection and estimation of ERP features. To this end, ERPs were elicited in sixteen healthy volunteers using electrical stimulation at graded intensities below and above the nociceptive withdrawal reflex threshold. Presence/absence of an ERP peak (categorical outcome) and its amplitude and latency (quantitative outcome) in each single-trial were evaluated independently by two human observers and two automated algorithms taken from existing literature. Categorical agreement was assessed using percentage positive and negative agreement and Cohen's κ, whereas quantitative agreement was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and the coefficient of variation. Typical values for the categorical agreement between manual and automated methods were derived, as well as reference values for the average and maximum differences that can be expected if one method is used instead of the others. Results showed that the human observers presented the highest categorical and quantitative agreement, and there were significantly large differences between detection and estimation of quantitative features among methods. In conclusion, substantial care should be taken in the selection of the detection/estimation approach, since factors like stimulation intensity and expected number of trials with/without response can play a significant role in the outcome of a study.