Cited by 30EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeural dynamics and brain functionDirection-of-Arrival Estimation Techniques

Measures of Spatial Similarity and Response Magnitude in MEG and Scalp EEG

Tian, Xing, Huber, David E.·2008·Brain Topography

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

Crossref · 10.1007/s10548-007-0040-3

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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)”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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