Cited by 8,496EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesProbability and Statistical ResearchStatistical Methods and Applications

Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data

Open access
Maris, Eric, Oostenveld, Robert·2007·Journal of Neuroscience Methods

Abstract

In this paper, we show how ElectroEncephaloGraphic (EEG) and MagnetoEncephaloGraphic (MEG) data can be analyzed statistically using nonparametric techniques. Nonparametric statistical tests offer complete freedom to the user with respect to the test statistic by means of which the experimental conditions are compared. This freedom provides a straightforward way to solve the multiple comparisons problem (MCP) and it allows to incorporate biophysically motivated constraints in the test statistic, which may drastically increase the sensitivity of the statistical test. The paper is written for two audiences: (1) empirical neuroscientists looking for the most appropriate data analysis method, and (2) methodologists interested in the theoretical concepts behind nonparametric statistical tests. For the empirical neuroscientist, a large part of the paper is written in a tutorial-like fashion, enabling neuroscientists to construct their own statistical test, maximizing the sensitivity to the expected effect. And for the methodologist, it is explained why the nonparametric test is formally correct. This means that we formulate a null hypothesis (identical probability distribution in the different experimental conditions) and show that the nonparametric test controls the false alarm rate under this null hypothesis.

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 · 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Correction for multiple comparisons at the electrode level was performed using cluster-based statistics implemented in Fieldtrip.

    “Correction for multiple comparisons at the electrode level was performed using the cluster-based statistics implemented in Fieldtrip [50]”
  • A nonparametric cluster permutation test was applied to compare differences between groups and conditions while controlling for multiple comparisons.

    “A nonparametric cluster permutation test was applied to compare differences between groups (monk rest vs. control rest) and conditions (monk meditation vs. monk rest) while controlling for multiple comparison (Maris and Oostenveld 2007).”

    From Brain–Heart Interactions Underlying Traditional Tibetan Buddhist Meditation (2019) · cites this paper as Maris and Oostenveld 2007

  • Statistical significance of decoding performance was assessed via permutation tests with 1,000 permutations, corrected for multiple comparisons using cluster-based correction.

    “Statistical significance of decoding performance was assessed via permutation test, randomly permuting the sample labels and repeating the decoding analysis 1,000 times, corrected for multiple comparisons using a cluster-based correction (cluster mass inference with cluster forming threshold at P < 0.05)105,106.”
  • Group-level one-sample t-tests per time point on MEG decoding accuracy were corrected for multiple comparisons using cluster-based correction.

    “A group-level one-sample t-test per time point was performed on the decoding accuracy results, corrected for multiple comparisons using a cluster-based correction106.”
  • Cluster-based permutation analyses were used for global TEP data.

    “Identified clusters were then compared to a permutation distribution generated using the Monte-Carlo method (10,000 permutations) and deemed significant if their cluster-statistic (sum of all t-values in the cluster) exceeded P < 0.05 (Maris and Oostenveld 2007).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Holmes AP. Statistical issues in functional brain mapping. PhD thesis. University of Glasgow; 1994.
  2. Singh KD, Barnes GR, Hillebrand A. Group imaging of taskrelated changes in cortical synchronization using nonparametric permutation testing. Neu- roImage 2003;19:1589-601.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Maris, Eric
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-08
Volume
164
Issue
1
Pages
177-190
ISSN
0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135894974
Cited by
8,496
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 722 · 2025: 929 · 2024: 835 · 2023: 762 · 2022: 777 · 2021: 796 · 2020: 667 · 2019: 645 · 2018: 543 · 2017: 437 · 2016: 354 · 2015: 283 · 2014: 239 · 2013: 174 · 2012: 119
FWCI
18.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
nonparametric tests, EEG signal analysis, MEG data analysis, statistical sensitivity, false alarm rate control
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Humans, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetoencephalography, Statistics, Nonparametric

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