Cargando…

Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study

We here compared results achieved by applying popular methods for reducing artifacts in magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) recordings of the auditory evoked Mismatch Negativity (MMN) responses in healthy adult subjects. We compared the Signal Space Separation (SSS) and tem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haumann, Niels Trusbak, Parkkonen, Lauri, Kliuchko, Marina, Vuust, Peter, Brattico, Elvira
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4972935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27524998
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7489108
_version_ 1782446322324865024
author Haumann, Niels Trusbak
Parkkonen, Lauri
Kliuchko, Marina
Vuust, Peter
Brattico, Elvira
author_facet Haumann, Niels Trusbak
Parkkonen, Lauri
Kliuchko, Marina
Vuust, Peter
Brattico, Elvira
author_sort Haumann, Niels Trusbak
collection PubMed
description We here compared results achieved by applying popular methods for reducing artifacts in magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) recordings of the auditory evoked Mismatch Negativity (MMN) responses in healthy adult subjects. We compared the Signal Space Separation (SSS) and temporal SSS (tSSS) methods for reducing noise from external and nearby sources. Our results showed that tSSS reduces the interference level more reliably than plain SSS, particularly for MEG gradiometers, also for healthy subjects not wearing strongly interfering magnetic material. Therefore, tSSS is recommended over SSS. Furthermore, we found that better artifact correction is achieved by applying Independent Component Analysis (ICA) in comparison to Signal Space Projection (SSP). Although SSP reduces the baseline noise level more than ICA, SSP also significantly reduces the signal—slightly more than it reduces the artifacts interfering with the signal. However, ICA also adds noise, or correction errors, to the waveform when the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the original data is relatively low—in particular to EEG and to MEG magnetometer data. In conclusion, ICA is recommended over SSP, but one should be careful when applying ICA to reduce artifacts on neurophysiological data with relatively low SNR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4972935
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49729352016-08-14 Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study Haumann, Niels Trusbak Parkkonen, Lauri Kliuchko, Marina Vuust, Peter Brattico, Elvira Comput Intell Neurosci Research Article We here compared results achieved by applying popular methods for reducing artifacts in magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) recordings of the auditory evoked Mismatch Negativity (MMN) responses in healthy adult subjects. We compared the Signal Space Separation (SSS) and temporal SSS (tSSS) methods for reducing noise from external and nearby sources. Our results showed that tSSS reduces the interference level more reliably than plain SSS, particularly for MEG gradiometers, also for healthy subjects not wearing strongly interfering magnetic material. Therefore, tSSS is recommended over SSS. Furthermore, we found that better artifact correction is achieved by applying Independent Component Analysis (ICA) in comparison to Signal Space Projection (SSP). Although SSP reduces the baseline noise level more than ICA, SSP also significantly reduces the signal—slightly more than it reduces the artifacts interfering with the signal. However, ICA also adds noise, or correction errors, to the waveform when the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the original data is relatively low—in particular to EEG and to MEG magnetometer data. In conclusion, ICA is recommended over SSP, but one should be careful when applying ICA to reduce artifacts on neurophysiological data with relatively low SNR. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016 2016-07-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4972935/ /pubmed/27524998 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7489108 Text en Copyright © 2016 Niels Trusbak Haumann et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Haumann, Niels Trusbak
Parkkonen, Lauri
Kliuchko, Marina
Vuust, Peter
Brattico, Elvira
Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study
title Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study
title_full Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study
title_fullStr Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study
title_short Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study
title_sort comparing the performance of popular meg/eeg artifact correction methods in an evoked-response study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4972935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27524998
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/7489108
work_keys_str_mv AT haumannnielstrusbak comparingtheperformanceofpopularmegeegartifactcorrectionmethodsinanevokedresponsestudy
AT parkkonenlauri comparingtheperformanceofpopularmegeegartifactcorrectionmethodsinanevokedresponsestudy
AT kliuchkomarina comparingtheperformanceofpopularmegeegartifactcorrectionmethodsinanevokedresponsestudy
AT vuustpeter comparingtheperformanceofpopularmegeegartifactcorrectionmethodsinanevokedresponsestudy
AT bratticoelvira comparingtheperformanceofpopularmegeegartifactcorrectionmethodsinanevokedresponsestudy