Global field power and topographic similarity
Abstract
Multichannel recordings are commonly presented as topographic maps series displaying the change of the potential distribution over time. When reviewing a sequence of potential maps it becomes obvious that there are epochs with only little activity (few field lines; small extrema values) while at other times the fields display high peaks and deep troughs with steep gradients. The measure of global field power (GFP) corresponds to the spatial standard deviation, and it quantifies the amount of activity at each time point in the field considering the data from all recording electrodes simultaneously resulting in a reference-independent descriptor of the potential field. Global field power is plotted as a function of time, and the occurrence times of GFP maxima are used to determine the latencies of evoked potential components. The topographical change occurring in subsequent potential field distributions may also be quantified by computing an index of global dissimilarity. Global field power and global dissimilarity show a complementary behavior over time: in general, high GFP is associated with similar fields while during periods between GFP peaks the topographic patterns of successive field distributions change rapidly accompanied by high dissimilarity values. The topographic changes, however, are best recognized by a segmentation procedure that considers field structure independent of GFP and global dissimilarity. The principles and practical applications of GFP computation, component latency determination and global dissimilarity of potential field distributions as well as a topographical time segmentation procedure will be illustrated with multichannel data evoked by visual stimuli.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Overall global field power (GFP) was calculated to specify and/or validate a predefined timeframe of interest via assessing overall peak latency of the components of interest.
“First, we calculated overall global field power (GFP)65–67 to specify and/or validate a predefined timeframe of interest via assessing overall peak latency of the components of interest.”
From Event-related potentials of automatic imitation are modulated by ethnicity during stimulus processing, but not during motor execution (2018) · cites this paper as [65]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 11 · Cited by 376
- Authors
- Skrandies, W.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Skrandies, Wolfgang
- Venue
- Brain Topography
- Published
- 1990
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 137-141
- ISSN
- 0896-0267 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6792
- OpenAlex
- W2087849126
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 0.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Brain Topography (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
- Keywords
- global field power, evoked potentials, multichannel EEG, topographic map, visual evoked potentials
- MeSH terms
- Brain, Brain Mapping, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Humans, Reaction Time
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