Cargando…

How to Evaluate Phase Differences between Trial Groups in Ongoing Electrophysiological Signals

A growing number of studies endeavor to reveal periodicities in sensory and cognitive functions, by comparing the distribution of ongoing (pre-stimulus) oscillatory phases between two (or more) trial groups reflecting distinct experimental outcomes. A systematic relation between the phase of spontan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: VanRullen, Rufin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27683543
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00426
_version_ 1782453373137584128
author VanRullen, Rufin
author_facet VanRullen, Rufin
author_sort VanRullen, Rufin
collection PubMed
description A growing number of studies endeavor to reveal periodicities in sensory and cognitive functions, by comparing the distribution of ongoing (pre-stimulus) oscillatory phases between two (or more) trial groups reflecting distinct experimental outcomes. A systematic relation between the phase of spontaneous electrophysiological signals, before a stimulus is even presented, and the eventual result of sensory or cognitive processing for that stimulus, would be indicative of an intrinsic periodicity in the underlying neural process. Prior studies of phase-dependent perception have used a variety of analytical methods to measure and evaluate phase differences, and there is currently no established standard practice in this field. The present report intends to remediate this need, by systematically comparing the statistical power of various measures of “phase opposition” between two trial groups, in a number of real and simulated experimental situations. Seven measures were evaluated: one parametric test (circular Watson-Williams test), and three distinct measures of phase opposition (phase bifurcation index, phase opposition sum, and phase opposition product) combined with two procedures for non-parametric statistical testing (permutation, or a combination of z-score and permutation). While these are obviously not the only existing or conceivable measures, they have all been used in recent studies. All tested methods performed adequately on a previously published dataset (Busch et al., 2009). On a variety of artificially constructed datasets, no single measure was found to surpass all others, but instead the suitability of each measure was contingent on several experimental factors: the time, frequency, and depth of oscillatory phase modulation; the absolute and relative amplitudes of post-stimulus event-related potentials for the two trial groups; the absolute and relative trial numbers for the two groups; and the number of permutations used for non-parametric testing. The concurrent use of two phase opposition measures, the parametric Watson-Williams test and a non-parametric test based on summing inter-trial coherence values for the two trial groups, appears to provide the most satisfactory outcome in all situations tested. Matlab code is provided to automatically compute these phase opposition measures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5021700
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50217002016-09-28 How to Evaluate Phase Differences between Trial Groups in Ongoing Electrophysiological Signals VanRullen, Rufin Front Neurosci Neuroscience A growing number of studies endeavor to reveal periodicities in sensory and cognitive functions, by comparing the distribution of ongoing (pre-stimulus) oscillatory phases between two (or more) trial groups reflecting distinct experimental outcomes. A systematic relation between the phase of spontaneous electrophysiological signals, before a stimulus is even presented, and the eventual result of sensory or cognitive processing for that stimulus, would be indicative of an intrinsic periodicity in the underlying neural process. Prior studies of phase-dependent perception have used a variety of analytical methods to measure and evaluate phase differences, and there is currently no established standard practice in this field. The present report intends to remediate this need, by systematically comparing the statistical power of various measures of “phase opposition” between two trial groups, in a number of real and simulated experimental situations. Seven measures were evaluated: one parametric test (circular Watson-Williams test), and three distinct measures of phase opposition (phase bifurcation index, phase opposition sum, and phase opposition product) combined with two procedures for non-parametric statistical testing (permutation, or a combination of z-score and permutation). While these are obviously not the only existing or conceivable measures, they have all been used in recent studies. All tested methods performed adequately on a previously published dataset (Busch et al., 2009). On a variety of artificially constructed datasets, no single measure was found to surpass all others, but instead the suitability of each measure was contingent on several experimental factors: the time, frequency, and depth of oscillatory phase modulation; the absolute and relative amplitudes of post-stimulus event-related potentials for the two trial groups; the absolute and relative trial numbers for the two groups; and the number of permutations used for non-parametric testing. The concurrent use of two phase opposition measures, the parametric Watson-Williams test and a non-parametric test based on summing inter-trial coherence values for the two trial groups, appears to provide the most satisfactory outcome in all situations tested. Matlab code is provided to automatically compute these phase opposition measures. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5021700/ /pubmed/27683543 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00426 Text en Copyright © 2016 VanRullen. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
VanRullen, Rufin
How to Evaluate Phase Differences between Trial Groups in Ongoing Electrophysiological Signals
title How to Evaluate Phase Differences between Trial Groups in Ongoing Electrophysiological Signals
title_full How to Evaluate Phase Differences between Trial Groups in Ongoing Electrophysiological Signals
title_fullStr How to Evaluate Phase Differences between Trial Groups in Ongoing Electrophysiological Signals
title_full_unstemmed How to Evaluate Phase Differences between Trial Groups in Ongoing Electrophysiological Signals
title_short How to Evaluate Phase Differences between Trial Groups in Ongoing Electrophysiological Signals
title_sort how to evaluate phase differences between trial groups in ongoing electrophysiological signals
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27683543
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00426
work_keys_str_mv AT vanrullenrufin howtoevaluatephasedifferencesbetweentrialgroupsinongoingelectrophysiologicalsignals