Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,077

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

FASTER: Fully Automated Statistical Thresholding for EEG artifact Rejection

Open access
Nolan, H., Whelan, R., Reilly, R.B.·2010·Journal of Neuroscience Methods

Abstract

Electroencephalogram (EEG) data are typically contaminated with artifacts (e.g., by eye movements). The effect of artifacts can be attenuated by deleting data with amplitudes over a certain value, for example. Independent component analysis (ICA) separates EEG data into neural activity and artifact; once identified, artifactual components can be deleted from the data. Often, artifact rejection algorithms require supervision (e.g., training using canonical artifacts). Many artifact rejection methods are time consuming when applied to high-density EEG data. We describe FASTER (Fully Automated Statistical Thresholding for EEG artifact Rejection). Parameters were estimated for various aspects of data (e.g., channel variance) in both the EEG time series and in the independent components of the EEG: outliers were detected and removed. FASTER was tested on both simulated EEG (n=47) and real EEG (n=47) data on 128-, 64-, and 32-scalp electrode arrays. FASTER was compared to supervised artifact detection by experts and to a variant of the Statistical Control for Dense Arrays of Sensors (SCADS) method. FASTER had >90% sensitivity and specificity for detection of contaminated channels, eye movement and EMG artifacts, linear trends and white noise. FASTER generally had >60% sensitivity and specificity for detection of contaminated epochs, vs. 0.15% for SCADS. FASTER also aggregates the ERP across subject datasets, and detects outlier datasets. The variance in the ERP baseline, a measure of noise, was significantly lower for FASTER than either the supervised or SCADS methods. ERP amplitude did not differ significantly between FASTER and the supervised approach.

Overview

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.2010.07.015

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Bian, 2006, Automatic removal of artifacts from EEG data using ICA and exponential analysis, Adv Neural Networks – ISNN, 2006, 719
  2. Croft, 2000, Removal of ocular artifact from the EEG: a review, Clin Neurophys, 30, 5, 10.1016/S0987-7053(00)00055-1 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Delorme, 2007, Enhanced detection of artifacts in EEG data using higher-order statistics and independent component analysis, Neuroimage, 34, 1443, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.004 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Handy, 2003, Graspable objects grab attention when the potential for action is recognized, Nat Neurosci, 6, 421, 10.1038/nn1031 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Jung, 2000, Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation, Psychophysiology, 37, 163, 10.1111/1469-8986.3720163 · doi:10.1111/1469-8986.3720163 · Paper page
  6. Junghöfer, 2000, Statistical control of artifacts in dense array EEG/MEG studies, Psychophysiology, 37, 523, 10.1111/1469-8986.3740523 · doi:10.1111/1469-8986.3740523 · Paper page
  7. Mielniczuk, 2007, Estimation of Hurst exponent revisited, Comput Stat Data Anal, 51, 4510, 10.1016/j.csda.2006.07.033 · DOI
  8. Moretti, 2003, Computerized processing of EEG-EOG-EMG artifacts for multi-centric studies in EEG oscillations and event-related potentials, Int J Psychophysiol, 47, 199, 10.1016/S0167-8760(02)00153-8 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Onton, 2006, Information-based modeling of event-related brain dynamics, Prog Brain Res, 99, 10.1016/S0079-6123(06)59007-7 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Oostenveld, 2001, The five percent electrode system for high-resolution EEG and ERP measurements, Clin Neurophys, 112, 713, 10.1016/S1388-2457(00)00527-7 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Schlögl, 2007, A fully automated correction method of EOG artifacts in EEG recordings, Clin Neurophys, 118, 98, 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Vorobyov, 2002, Blind noise reduction for multisensory signals using ICA and subspace filtering, with application to EEG analysis, Biol Cybern, 86, 293, 10.1007/s00422-001-0298-6 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Yandong, 2006, Automatic removal of the eye blink artifact from EEG using an ICA-based template matching approach, Physiol Meas, 425

Cited by

See all 1,077

Metadata

Authors
Nolan, H., Whelan, R., & Reilly, R. B.
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
192
Issue
1
Pages
152-162
ISSN
0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023869733
Cited by
1,077
References
2
FWCI
8.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: FASTER: Fully Automated Statistical Thresholding for EEG artifact Rejection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.07.015
The paper
Nolan, H., Whelan, R., & Reilly, R. B. (2010). FASTER: Fully Automated Statistical Thresholding for EEG artifact Rejection. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.07.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.