Cited by 5,055EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyNeural dynamics and brain function

A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact

Gratton, Gabriele, Coles, Michael G.H, Donchin, Emanuel·1983·Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology

Abstract

A new off-line procedure for dealing with ocular artifacts in ERP recording is described. The procedure (EMCP) uses EOG and EEG records for individual trials in an experimental session to estimate a propagation factor which describes the relationship between the EOG and EEG traces. The propagation factor is computed after stimulus-linked variability in both traces has been removed. Different propagation factors are computed for blinks and eye movements. Tests are presented which demonstrate the validity and reliability of the procedure. ERPs derived from trials corrected by EMCP are more similar to a 'true' ERP than are ERPs derived from either uncorrected or randomly corrected trials. The procedure also reduces the difference between ERPs which are based on trials with different degrees of EOG variance. Furthermore, variability at each time point, across trials, is reduced following correction. The propagation factor decreases from frontal to parietal electrodes, and is larger for saccades than blinks. It is more consistent within experimental sessions than between sessions. The major advantage of the procedure is that it permits retention of all trials in an ERP experiment, irrespective of ocular artifact. Thus, studies of populations characterized by a high degree of artifact, and those requiring eye movements as part of the experimental task, are made possible. Furthermore, there is no need to require subjects to restrict eye movement activity. In comparison to procedures suggested by others, EMCP also has the advantage that separate correction factors are computed for blinks and movements and that these factors are based on data from the experimental session itself rather than from a separate calibration session.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0013-4694(83)90135-9

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • EEG epochs were corrected for eye-movement artefacts using the Gratton et al. (1983) technique, and any epoch with a signal exceeding 200 μV peak-to-peak for any channel was excluded.

    “The epochs were corrected for eye-movement artefacts, using the technique described in (Gratton et al., 1983), and any epoch with a signal exceeding a peak-to-peak amplitude of 200 µV for any channel was excluded.”

    From Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech (2017) · cites this paper as Gratton et al., 1983

  • ERN and CRN standardized residual scores may be preferable to subtraction-based difference scores in separating error processing from response monitoring.

    “ERN and CRN standardized residual scores (ERNresid and CRNresid) were calculated based on measuring the variance leftover in a regression equation in which one score is modeled as a predictor of another score, because they may be preferable to subtraction-based difference scores in separating error processing from response monitoring [22, 40].”
  • The ΔERN is correlated with both the ERN and CRN and is therefore not an independent measure of either ERP.

    “The ΔERN is correlated both with the ERN and CRN and is therefore not an independent measure of either ERP [40].”
  • Segments with eye movements and blinks were kept and corrected using the standard Gratton and Coles procedure.

    “Segments with eye movements and blinks were kept and corrected, adopting the standard Gratton and Coles procedure (Gratton et al., 1983).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1983-04
Volume
55
Issue
4
Pages
468-484
ISSN
0013-4694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114512489
Cited by
5,055
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 89 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 154 · 2023: 139 · 2022: 177 · 2021: 178 · 2020: 223 · 2019: 213 · 2018: 235 · 2017: 253 · 2016: 267 · 2015: 263 · 2014: 283 · 2013: 301 · 2012: 276
FWCI
5.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
ocular artifact removal, event-related potentials, saccades, eye movements, trial retention
MeSH terms
Blinking, Electroencephalography, Electrooculography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Mathematics

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