Cargando…

How Different EEG References Influence Sensor Level Functional Connectivity Graphs

Highlights: Hamming Distance is applied to distinguish the difference of functional connectivity network. The orientations of sources are testified to influence the scalp Functional Connectivity Graph (FCG) from different references significantly. REST, the reference electrode standardization techni...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Yunzhi, Zhang, Junpeng, Cui, Yuan, Yang, Gang, He, Ling, Liu, Qi, Yin, Guangfu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28725175
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00368
_version_ 1783248069757763584
author Huang, Yunzhi
Zhang, Junpeng
Cui, Yuan
Yang, Gang
He, Ling
Liu, Qi
Yin, Guangfu
author_facet Huang, Yunzhi
Zhang, Junpeng
Cui, Yuan
Yang, Gang
He, Ling
Liu, Qi
Yin, Guangfu
author_sort Huang, Yunzhi
collection PubMed
description Highlights: Hamming Distance is applied to distinguish the difference of functional connectivity network. The orientations of sources are testified to influence the scalp Functional Connectivity Graph (FCG) from different references significantly. REST, the reference electrode standardization technique, is proved to have an overall stable and excellent performance in variable situations. The choice of an electroencephalograph (EEG) reference is a practical issue for the study of brain functional connectivity. To study how EEG reference influence functional connectivity estimation (FCE), this study compares the differences of FCE resulting from the different references such as REST (the reference electrode standardization technique), average reference (AR), linked mastoids (LM), and left mastoid references (LR). Simulations involve two parts. One is based on 300 dipolar pairs, which are located on the superficial cortex with a radial source direction. The other part is based on 20 dipolar pairs. In each pair, the dipoles have various orientation combinations. The relative error (RE) and Hamming distance (HD) between functional connectivity matrices of ideal recordings and that of recordings obtained with different references, are metrics to compare the differences of the scalp functional connectivity graph (FCG) derived from those two kinds of recordings. Lower RE and HD values imply more similarity between the two FCGs. Using the ideal recording (IR) as a standard, the results show that AR, LM and LR perform well only in specific conditions, i.e., AR performs stable when there is no upward component in sources' orientation. LR achieves desirable results when the sources' locations are away from left ear. LM achieves an indistinct difference with IR, i.e., when the distribution of source locations is symmetric along the line linking the two ears. However, REST not only achieves excellent performance for superficial and radial dipolar sources, but also achieves a stable and robust performance with variable source locations and orientations. Benefitting from the stable and robust performance of REST vs. other reference methods, REST might best recover the real FCG of EEG. Thus, REST based FCG may be a good candidate to compare the FCG of EEG based on different references from different labs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5496954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54969542017-07-19 How Different EEG References Influence Sensor Level Functional Connectivity Graphs Huang, Yunzhi Zhang, Junpeng Cui, Yuan Yang, Gang He, Ling Liu, Qi Yin, Guangfu Front Neurosci Neuroscience Highlights: Hamming Distance is applied to distinguish the difference of functional connectivity network. The orientations of sources are testified to influence the scalp Functional Connectivity Graph (FCG) from different references significantly. REST, the reference electrode standardization technique, is proved to have an overall stable and excellent performance in variable situations. The choice of an electroencephalograph (EEG) reference is a practical issue for the study of brain functional connectivity. To study how EEG reference influence functional connectivity estimation (FCE), this study compares the differences of FCE resulting from the different references such as REST (the reference electrode standardization technique), average reference (AR), linked mastoids (LM), and left mastoid references (LR). Simulations involve two parts. One is based on 300 dipolar pairs, which are located on the superficial cortex with a radial source direction. The other part is based on 20 dipolar pairs. In each pair, the dipoles have various orientation combinations. The relative error (RE) and Hamming distance (HD) between functional connectivity matrices of ideal recordings and that of recordings obtained with different references, are metrics to compare the differences of the scalp functional connectivity graph (FCG) derived from those two kinds of recordings. Lower RE and HD values imply more similarity between the two FCGs. Using the ideal recording (IR) as a standard, the results show that AR, LM and LR perform well only in specific conditions, i.e., AR performs stable when there is no upward component in sources' orientation. LR achieves desirable results when the sources' locations are away from left ear. LM achieves an indistinct difference with IR, i.e., when the distribution of source locations is symmetric along the line linking the two ears. However, REST not only achieves excellent performance for superficial and radial dipolar sources, but also achieves a stable and robust performance with variable source locations and orientations. Benefitting from the stable and robust performance of REST vs. other reference methods, REST might best recover the real FCG of EEG. Thus, REST based FCG may be a good candidate to compare the FCG of EEG based on different references from different labs. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5496954/ /pubmed/28725175 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00368 Text en Copyright © 2017 Huang, Zhang, Cui, Yang, He, Liu and Yin. 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
Huang, Yunzhi
Zhang, Junpeng
Cui, Yuan
Yang, Gang
He, Ling
Liu, Qi
Yin, Guangfu
How Different EEG References Influence Sensor Level Functional Connectivity Graphs
title How Different EEG References Influence Sensor Level Functional Connectivity Graphs
title_full How Different EEG References Influence Sensor Level Functional Connectivity Graphs
title_fullStr How Different EEG References Influence Sensor Level Functional Connectivity Graphs
title_full_unstemmed How Different EEG References Influence Sensor Level Functional Connectivity Graphs
title_short How Different EEG References Influence Sensor Level Functional Connectivity Graphs
title_sort how different eeg references influence sensor level functional connectivity graphs
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5496954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28725175
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00368
work_keys_str_mv AT huangyunzhi howdifferenteegreferencesinfluencesensorlevelfunctionalconnectivitygraphs
AT zhangjunpeng howdifferenteegreferencesinfluencesensorlevelfunctionalconnectivitygraphs
AT cuiyuan howdifferenteegreferencesinfluencesensorlevelfunctionalconnectivitygraphs
AT yanggang howdifferenteegreferencesinfluencesensorlevelfunctionalconnectivitygraphs
AT heling howdifferenteegreferencesinfluencesensorlevelfunctionalconnectivitygraphs
AT liuqi howdifferenteegreferencesinfluencesensorlevelfunctionalconnectivitygraphs
AT yinguangfu howdifferenteegreferencesinfluencesensorlevelfunctionalconnectivitygraphs