Chirp Analyzer for Estimating Amplitude and Latency of Steady-State Auditory Envelope Following Responses

Using simulated data for comparing the estimation performance by each method, we found that the CA is able to correctly estimate EFR amplitudes, without the typical bias observed in the STFT estimates. The CA is more robust to noise than the CWT method, although with higher sensitivity to the latency of the response. Thus, the estimation of the EFR amplitude with any of the methods, but especially with CA, should be corrected by using the estimated delay. Analysis of real data confirmed these results and showed that all methods offer estimated EFRs similar to those found in previous studies using the classical Fourier Analyzer.