Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identifying key factors for improving ICA‐based decomposition of EEG data in mobile and stationary experiments

Open access
Klug, Marius, Gramann, Klaus·2021·European Journal of Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Recent developments in EEG hardware and analyses approaches allow for recordings in both stationary and mobile settings. Irrespective of the experimental setting, EEG recordings are contaminated with noise that has to be removed before the data can be functionally interpreted. Independent component analysis (ICA) is a commonly used tool to remove artifacts such as eye movement, muscle activity, and external noise from the data and to analyze activity on the level of EEG effective brain sources. The effectiveness of filtering the data is one key preprocessing step to improve the decomposition that has been investigated previously. However, no study thus far compared the different requirements of mobile and stationary experiments regarding the preprocessing for ICA decomposition. We thus evaluated how movement in EEG experiments, the number of channels, and the high‐pass filter cutoff during preprocessing influence the ICA decomposition. We found that for commonly used settings (stationary experiment, 64 channels, 0.5 Hz filter), the ICA results are acceptable. However, high‐pass filters of up to 2 Hz cut‐off frequency should be used in mobile experiments, and more channels require a higher filter to reach an optimal decomposition. Fewer brain ICs were found in mobile experiments, but cleaning the data with ICA has been proved to be important and functional even with low‐density channel setups. Based on the results, we provide guidelines for different experimental settings that improve the ICA decomposition.

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 · 10.1111/ejn.14992

Cites

36 of 36 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 36 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1109/SMC.2019.8914292 · doi:10.1109/smc.2019.8914292
  2. Gramann K., 2018, Heading Computation in the Human Retrosplenial Complex during full‐body Rotation, bioRxiv, 417972
  3. 10.1109/NER.2019.8716959 · doi:10.1109/ner.2019.8716959

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Klug, M., & Gramann, K.
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-10-15
Volume
54
Issue
12
Pages
8406-8420
ISSN
  • 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9568
OpenAlex
W3090156323
Cited by
268
References
36
FWCI
12.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Funders
  • U.S. Air Force (ONR 10024807)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (GR2627/8‐1)

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: Identifying key factors for improving ICA‐based decomposition of EEG data in mobile and stationary experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ejn.14992
The paper
Klug, M., & Gramann, K. (2021). Identifying key factors for improving ICA‐based decomposition of EEG data in mobile and stationary experiments. European Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.14992

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.