Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 655

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis and visualization of single‐trial event‐related potentials

Open access
Jung, Tzyy‐Ping, Makeig, Scott, Westerfield, Marissa, Townsend, Jeanne, Courchesne, Eric, Sejnowski, Terrence J.·2001·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

In this study, a linear decomposition technique, independent component analysis (ICA), is applied to single‐trial multichannel EEG data from event‐related potential (ERP) experiments. Spatial filters derived by ICA blindly separate the input data into a sum of temporally independent and spatially fixed components arising from distinct or overlapping brain or extra‐brain sources. Both the data and their decomposition are displayed using a new visualization tool, the “ERP image,” that can clearly characterize single‐trial variations in the amplitudes and latencies of evoked responses, particularly when sorted by a relevant behavioral or physiological variable. These tools were used to analyze data from a visual selective attention experiment on 28 control subjects plus 22 neurological patients whose EEG records were heavily contaminated with blink and other eye‐movement artifacts. Results show that ICA can separate artifactual, stimulus‐locked, response‐locked, and non‐event‐related background EEG activities into separate components, a taxonomy not obtained from conventional signal averaging approaches. This method allows: (1) removal of pervasive artifacts of all types from single‐trial EEG records, (2) identification and segregation of stimulus‐ and response‐locked EEG components, (3) examination of differences in single‐trial responses, and (4) separation of temporally distinct but spatially overlapping EEG oscillatory activities with distinct relationships to task events. The proposed methods also allow the interaction between ERPs and the ongoing EEG to be investigated directly. We studied the between‐subject component stability of ICA decomposition of single‐trial EEG epochs by clustering components with similar scalp maps and activation power spectra. Components accounting for blinks, eye movements, temporal muscle activity, event‐related potentials, and event‐modulated alpha activities were largely replicated across subjects. Applying ICA and ERP image visualization to the analysis of sets of single trials from event‐related EEG (or MEG) experiments can increase the information available from ERP (or ERF) data. Hum. Brain Mapping 14:166–185, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.1050

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 655

Metadata

Authors
Jung, T., Makeig, S., Westerfield, M., Townsend, J., Courchesne, E., & Sejnowski, T. J.
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-08-27
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
166-185
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W1990928820
Cited by
655
References
5
FWCI
5.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.