title: Two different analyzing methods for inhibitory reflexes: Do they yield comparable outcomes?
abstract: For the analysis of inhibitory reflexes, no consensus exists regarding the methodology that should be used. The most commonly used methods are the cumulative sum (CUSUM) error box and the t-test. The aim of this study was to assess the interexaminer reliability of those two analyzing methods and to test whether both methods: yield similar results.
  
  
  
  Inhibitory jaw reflexes were recorded from the right masseter muscle of 11 participants (6 males, 5 females). Electrical stimuli were applied at the hairy skin of the upper lip on the right side. In total, 16 stimuli were applied while the participants maintained their clenching level at 10% of their maximum voluntary EMG activity. Two different examiners analyzed the reflex data with two different methods: the CUSUM error box and the t-test. The outcome variables were the number of reflex parts, the reflex area size, and the reflex onset. Comparability between examiners and between the two analyzing methods: was assessed with the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
  
  
  
  The interexaminer reliability was fair-to-good to excellent for both the CUSUM error box and the t-test analyses and for all the variables tested. The comparability of the two analyzing methods: was fair-to-good.
  
  
  
  When analyzing the inhibitory reflex data, both the CUSUM error box and the t-test can be used.
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: M.Koutris@acta.nl.
authors.forename: Michail
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Koutris
authors.affiliation: Koç University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
authors.forename: Kemal S
authors.initials: KS
authors.lastname: Türker
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Jacobus J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: van der Weijden
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Maurits K A
authors.initials: MKA
authors.lastname: van Selms
authors.affiliation: Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: Frank
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Lobbezoo
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D004558:Electric Stimulation; D004576:Electromyography; D019054:Evoked Potentials, Motor / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007568:Jaw / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D008406:Masseter Muscle / Q000502:physiology; D008875:Middle Aged; D009433:Neural Inhibition / Q000502:physiology*; D012018:Reflex / Q000502:physiology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013223:Statistics as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: CUSUM error box; Inhibitory jaw reflex; t-Test