Journal of Neuroscience Methods 274 (2016) 49–52 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Neuroscience Methods jo ur nal ho me p age: www.elsevier.com/locate/jneumeth Two different analyzing methods for inhibitory reflexes: Do they yield comparable outcomes? Michail Koutris a,∗ , Kemal S. Türker b , Jacobus J. van der Weijden a , Maurits K.A. van Selms a , Frank Lobbezoo a a Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands b Koc ¸ University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey h i g h l i g h t s • For the analysis of inhibitory jaw reflexes the cumulative sum (CUSUM) error box and the t-test method can be used. • This study aimed to assess the interexaminer reliability and test whether both methods yield similar results. • Inhibitory jaw reflexes were recorded from the right masseter muscle of 11 participants. • The interexaminer reliability was fair-to-good to excellent. The comparability of the two analyzing methods was fair-to-good. • When analyzing the inhibitory jaw reflex data, both the CUSUM error box and the t-test method can be used. a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 22 February 2016 Received in revised form 3 October 2016 Accepted 4 October 2016 Available online 4 October 2016 Keywords: Inhibitory jaw reflex CUSUM error box t-Test a b s t r a c t Background: 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. Methods: 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). Results: 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. Comparison with existing methods/conclusion: When analyzing the inhibitory reflex data, both the CUSUM error box and the t-test can be used. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Abbreviations: EMG, electromyography; MVC, Maximum voluntary contraction; CUSUM, Cumulative Sum. ∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail addresses: M.Koutris@acta.nl, mkoutris@gmail.com (M. Koutris). 1. Introduction The reflex control of the mandible is of vital importance for the normal masticatory function of humans. Excitatory jaw reflexes are responsible for the rapid reaction to external stimuli to the mastica- tory muscles, while inhibitory jaw reflexes protect the system when sudden loads are applied to the muscles. The fine coordination of the mandibular function is the result of the balanced activation of these reflexes together with the activity of the masticatory muscles, the temporomandibular joints and the associated tissues (Lobbezoo http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.10.003 0165-0270/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.