Cited by 810Blind Source Separation TechniquesEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesTensor decomposition and applications

Independent EEG Sources Are Dipolar

Open access
Delorme, Arnaud, Palmer, Jason, Onton, Julie, Oostenveld, Robert, Makeig, Scott·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Independent component analysis (ICA) and blind source separation (BSS) methods are increasingly used to separate individual brain and non-brain source signals mixed by volume conduction in electroencephalographic (EEG) and other electrophysiological recordings. We compared results of decomposing thirteen 71-channel human scalp EEG datasets by 22 ICA and BSS algorithms, assessing the pairwise mutual information (PMI) in scalp channel pairs, the remaining PMI in component pairs, the overall mutual information reduction (MIR) effected by each decomposition, and decomposition 'dipolarity' defined as the number of component scalp maps matching the projection of a single equivalent dipole with less than a given residual variance. The least well-performing algorithm was principal component analysis (PCA); best performing were AMICA and other likelihood/mutual information based ICA methods. Though these and other commonly-used decomposition methods returned many similar components, across 18 ICA/BSS algorithms mean dipolarity varied linearly with both MIR and with PMI remaining between the resulting component time courses, a result compatible with an interpretation of many maximally independent EEG components as being volume-conducted projections of partially-synchronous local cortical field activity within single compact cortical domains. To encourage further method comparisons, the data and software used to prepare the results have been made available (http://sccn.ucsd.edu/wiki/BSSComparison).

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0030135

Cites

56 of 56 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?

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

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [26]Gómez-Herrero G Atienza M Egiazarian K Cantero J 2008 Gómez-Herrero G, Atienza M, Egiazarian K, Cantero JL. Neuroimage 43 3 497 508 18707006
  2. [40]Akalin Acar Z Palmer J Worrell G Makeig S 2011 Adaptive mixture independent component analysis and source localization in epilepsy. IEEE EMBC Boston MA
  3. [51]Cichocki A Amari S 2002 Adaptive Blind Signal Processing: Wiley

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Delorme, A., Palmer, J., Onton, J., Oostenveld, R., & Makeig, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-02-15
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
e30135
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171746332
Cited by
810
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 15
FWCI
58.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0613595)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (NS047293)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01-NS047293-01A1, R01NS047293)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Blind Source Separation Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Computational Mathematics › Tensor decomposition and applications
Keywords
independent component analysis, blind source separation, EEG source localization, dipole modeling, volume conduction, mutual information, principal component analysis, scalp EEG
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Brain Mapping, Computer Simulation, Electroencephalography, Humans, Scalp, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, 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