Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 412

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Nonrandomness, nonlinear dependence, and nonstationarity of electroencephalographic recordings from epilepsy patients

Open access
Andrzejak, Ralph G., Schindler, Kaspar, Rummel, Christian·2012·Physical Review E

Abstract

To derive tests for randomness, nonlinear-independence, and stationarity, we combine surrogates with a nonlinear prediction error, a nonlinear interdependence measure, and linear variability measures, respectively. We apply these tests to intracranial electroencephalographic recordings (EEG) from patients suffering from pharmacoresistant focal-onset epilepsy. These recordings had been performed prior to and independent from our study as part of the epilepsy diagnostics. The clinical purpose of these recordings was to delineate the brain areas to be surgically removed in each individual patient in order to achieve seizure control. This allowed us to define two distinct sets of signals: One set of signals recorded from brain areas where the first ictal EEG signal changes were detected as judged by expert visual inspection ("focal signals") and one set of signals recorded from brain areas that were not involved at seizure onset ("nonfocal signals"). We find more rejections for both the randomness and the nonlinear-independence test for focal versus nonfocal signals. In contrast more rejections of the stationarity test are found for nonfocal signals. Furthermore, while for nonfocal signals the rejection of the stationarity test increases the rejection probability of the randomness and nonlinear-independence test substantially, we find a much weaker influence for the focal signals. In consequence, the contrast between the focal and nonfocal signals obtained from the randomness and nonlinear-independence test is further enhanced when we exclude signals for which the stationarity test is rejected. To study the dependence between the randomness and nonlinear-independence test we include only focal signals for which the stationarity test is not rejected. We show that the rejection of these two tests correlates across signals. The rejection of either test is, however, neither necessary nor sufficient for the rejection of the other test. Thus, our results suggest that EEG signals from epileptogenic brain areas are less random, more nonlinear-dependent, and more stationary compared to signals recorded from nonepileptogenic brain areas. We provide the data, source code, and detailed results in the public domain.

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 · 10.1103/physreve.86.046206

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 412

Metadata

Authors
Andrzejak, R. G., Schindler, K., & Rummel, C.
Venue
Physical Review E
Published
2012-10-12
Volume
86
Issue
4
Pages
046206-046206
ISSN
  • 1539-3755 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-2376
OpenAlex
W2334762131
Cited by
412
References
0
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Nonrandomness, nonlinear dependence, and nonstationarity of electroencephalographic recordings from epilepsy patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physreve.86.046206
The paper
Andrzejak, R. G., Schindler, K., & Rummel, C. (2012). Nonrandomness, nonlinear dependence, and nonstationarity of electroencephalographic recordings from epilepsy patients. Physical Review E. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.86.046206

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.