Measures of Spatial Similarity and Response Magnitude in MEG and Scalp EEG
Abstract
Sensor selection is typically used in magnetoencephalography (MEG) and scalp electroencephalography (EEG) studies, but this practice cannot differentiate between changes in the distribution of neural sources versus changes in the magnitude of neural sources. This problem is further complicated by (1) subject averaging despite sizable individual anatomical differences and (2) experimental designs that produce overlapping waveforms due to short latencies between stimuli. Using data from the entire spatial array of sensors, we present simple multivariate measures that (1) normalize against individual differences by comparison with each individual's standard response; (2) compare the similarity of spatial patterns in different conditions (angle test) to ascertain whether the distribution of neural sources is different; and (3) compare the response magnitude between conditions which are sufficiently similar (projection test). These claims are supported by applying the reported techniques to a short-term word priming paradigm as measured with MEG, revealing more reliable results as compared to traditional sensor selection methodology. Although precise cortical localization remains intractable, these techniques are easy to calculate, relatively assumption free, and yield the important psychological measures of similarity and response magnitude.
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?
The angle test of response similarity allows spatial similarity to be evaluated in electrophysiological work.
“This technique permits the assessment of spatial similarity in electrophysiological experiments (Huber et al., 2008; Tian and Huber, 2008; Davelaar et al., submitted)”
From Mental imagery of speech and movement implicates the dynamics of internal forward models (2010) · cites this paper as Tian and Huber, 2008
Cites
Beyond mind-reading: multi-voxel pattern analysis of fMRI data
Norman, K. A., Polyn, S. M., Detre, G. J., & Haxby, J. V. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.07.005 · Cited by 2,271 · see citing works
Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink?
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., & Arnell, K. M. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.3.849 · Cited by 1,649 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mental imagery of speech and movement implicates the dynamics of internal forward models
Tian, X. (2010) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00166 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
“The cosine value of this angle, which can be calculated from the dot product of two response vectors (Tian and Huber, 2008) is the angle measure between two topographic patterns (between angle measure), where 1 stands for exact match (angle equals 0) and −1 stands for opposite (angle equals π).”
Self-citationTian, X., & Poeppel, D. (2012) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00314 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Tian, X., & Huber, D. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tian, Xing
- Venue
- Brain Topography
- Published
- 2007-12-13
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 131-141
- ISSN
- 0896-0267 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6792
- OpenAlex
- W2135743608
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Brain Topography (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH063993, MH063993-04)
- 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 › Signal Processing › Direction-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques
- Keywords
- spatial similarity, response magnitude, multivariate analysis, sensor selection, individual differences, word priming, MEG, scalp EEG
- MeSH terms
- Brain, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Magnetoencephalography, Multivariate Analysis
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