Saccadic spike potentials in gamma-band EEG: Characterization, detection and suppression
Abstract
Analysis of high-frequency (gamma-band) neural activity by means of non-invasive EEG is gaining increasing interest. However, we have recently shown that a saccade-related spike potential (SP) seriously confounds the analysis of EEG induced gamma-band responses (iGBR), as the SP eludes traditional EEG artifact rejection methods. Here we provide a comprehensive profile of the SP and evaluate methods for its detection and suppression, aiming to unveil true cerebral gamma-band activity. The SP appears consistently as a sharp biphasic deflection of about 22 ms starting at the saccade onset, with a frequency band of approximately 20-90 Hz. On the average, larger saccades elicit higher SP amplitudes. The SP amplitude gradually changes from the extra-ocular channels towards posterior sites with the steepest gradients around the eyes, indicating its ocular source. Although the amplitude and the sign of the SP depend on the choice of reference channel, the potential gradients remain the same and non-zero for all references. The scalp topography is modulated almost exclusively by the direction of saccades, with steeper gradients ipsilateral to the saccade target. We discuss how the above characteristics impede attempts to remove these SPs from the EEG by common temporal filtering, choice of different references, or rejection of contaminated trials. We examine the extent to which SPs can be reliably detected without an eye tracker, assess the degree to which scalp current density derivation attenuates the effect of the SP, and propose a tailored ICA procedure for minimizing the effect of the SP.
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?
Higher frequencies are more prone to artifact from eye movements and other sources.
“18-25 Hz power was used for the high frequency power range of interest because higher frequencies are more prone to artifact from eye movements and other sources 71,72 and applying ICA for artifact removal to data in an online fashion was technically challenging.”
From The neural correlates of dreaming (2017) · cites this paper as [71]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 79 · Cited by 263
- Authors
- Keren, A. S., Yuval-Greenberg, S., & Deouell, L. Y.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Keren, Alon S.
- ORCID
- Deouell, Leon Y.
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 2248-2263
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087560820
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 5.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
- Keywords
- gamma-band EEG, saccades, EEG artifact rejection, scalp topography, saccade direction, independent component analysis, saccade detection
- MeSH terms
- Action Potentials, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Saccades, Artifacts, Principal Component 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