Cited by 75Neural dynamics and brain functionFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesNeuroscience and Neural Engineering

Assessing Granger Causality in Electrophysiological Data: Removing the Adverse Effects of Common Signals via Bipolar Derivations

Open access
Trongnetrpunya, Amy, Nandi, Bijurika, Kang, Daesung, Kocsis, Bernat, Schroeder, Charles E., Ding, Mingzhou·2016·Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience

Abstract

Multielectrode voltage data are usually recorded against a common reference. Such data are frequently used without further treatment to assess patterns of functional connectivity between neuronal populations and between brain areas. It is important to note from the outset that such an approach is valid only when the reference electrode is nearly electrically silent. In practice, however, the reference electrode is generally not electrically silent, thereby adding a common signal to the recorded data. Volume conduction further complicates the problem. In this study we demonstrate the adverse effects of common signals on the estimation of Granger causality, which is a statistical measure used to infer synaptic transmission and information flow in neural circuits from multielectrode data. We further test the hypothesis that the problem can be overcome by utilizing bipolar derivations where the difference between two nearby electrodes is taken and treated as a representation of local neural activity. Simulated data generated by a neuronal network model where the connectivity pattern is known were considered first. This was followed by analyzing data from three experimental preparations where a priori predictions regarding the patterns of causal interactions can be made: (1) laminar recordings from the hippocampus of an anesthetized rat during theta rhythm, (2) laminar recordings from V4 of an awake-behaving macaque monkey during alpha rhythm, and (3) ECoG recordings from electrode arrays implanted in the middle temporal lobe and prefrontal cortex of an epilepsy patient during fixation. For both simulation and experimental analysis the results show that bipolar derivations yield the expected connectivity patterns whereas the untreated data (referred to as unipolar signals) do not. In addition, current source density signals, where applicable, yield results that are close to the expected connectivity patterns, whereas the commonly practiced average re-reference method leads to erroneous results.

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 · 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00189

Cites

64 of 64 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?

  • Bipolar derivation was used prior to Granger causality and coherence analysis to avoid spurious results from a common reference.

    “Bipolar derivation is a recommended prestep prior to Granger causality and coherence analysis, as the presence of a common reference can lead to spurious results (73, 74).”

    From Layer and rhythm specificity for predictive routing (2020) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) says a common reference can confound Granger causality and proposes bipolar derivations to overcome the problem. Discussion > Additional remarks (page unavailable) explicitly recommends bipolar derivation as a post hoc step before computing connectivity measures such as Granger causality. The paper does not specifically establish the recommendation for coherence analysis. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wiener N. (1956). The theory of prediction, in Modern Mathematics for Engineers, Vol. 1, ed Beckenbach E. F. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill), 125– 139.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Trongnetrpunya, A., Nandi, B., Kang, D., Kocsis, B., Schroeder, C. E., & Ding, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
Corresponding author
Ding, Mingzhou
Venue
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
Published
2016-01-20
Volume
9
Pages
189-189
ISSN
1662-5137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2272545495
Cited by
75
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (MH097320, MH100820, MH103814, DC011490)
  • National Science Foundation (BCS-1439188)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
Keywords
Granger causality, reference electrode, volume conduction, multi-electrode recording, functional connectivity, current source density, theta oscillations, alpha rhythm, electrocorticography, hippocampus, area V4, epilepsy, neural circuits

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