IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

ENG Software

Tom Boismier boismier at umich.edu
Fri May 17 06:51:43 EST 1996


In article <199605170430.XAA17727 at moe.cc.utexas.edu>, 
sirianni at UTS.CC.UTEXAS.EDU says...
>
>>I am starting to preforma a LOT of ENGs for a particular ENT group. They 
only
>>have a one channel recorder so the readings are just grossly peripheral or 
CNS.
>>I know I have heard of software out there that can read a strip that has 
been
>>scanned into the computer. Has anyone used this software? Does it work at 
least
>>moderatly good? Any suggestions of what works best if there are several 
peices
>>of software?

Time for Tom's regular rant about ENG software. Software gives you NO 
advantage in analyzing spontaneous, positional, Hallpike, or caloric tracings. 
In fact, given the currenttly available software's relatively poor ability to 
distinguish nystagmus from artifact (ie, blinks, saccades, electical noise), 
relying on software to anaylze a poor quality recording isn't a good idea. 
Your eyes are much better at picking a nystagmus pattern out of a noisy trace 
than any software. 

Given that, why buy computerized ENG? It's the ability to take a strict and 
detailed look at smooth pursuit and saccade that makes it worthwhile. If the 
target is under computer control, you can get the software to give you 
detailed information about the patient's central vestibulo-ocular function, 
and, in the case of the commercially available stuff, compare it to a large 
database of age and sex-matched norms.

If you're doing traditional stripchart recordings of ENG, with no computer 
control of the saccade and pursuit stimuli, feeding the data into a computer 
will give you no advantage.

[end rant]  ;)




More information about the Audiolog mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net