Back

No need for extensive artifact rejection for ICA - A multi-study evaluation on stationary and mobile EEG datasets

Klug, M.; Berg, T.; Gramann, K.

2022-09-15 neuroscience
10.1101/2022.09.13.507772 bioRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveElectroencephalography (EEG) studies increasingly make use of more ecologically valid experimental protocols involving mobile participants who actively engage with their environment (MoBI; Gramann et al., 2011). These mobile paradigms lead to increased artifacts in the recorded data that are often treated using Independent Component Analysis (ICA). When analyzing EEG data, especially in a mobile context, removing samples regarded as artifactual is a common approach before computing ICA. Automatic tools for this exist, such as the automatic sample rejection of the AMICA algorithm (Palmer et al., 2011), but the impact of the two factors movement intensity and the automatic sample rejection has not been systematically evaluated yet. ApproachWe computed AMICA decompositions on eight datasets from six open-access studies with varying degrees of movement intensities using increasingly conservative sample rejection criteria. We evaluated the subsequent decomposition quality in terms of the component mutual information, the amount of brain, muscle, and "other" components, the residual variance of the brain components, and an exemplary signal-to-noise ratio. Main resultsWe found that increasing movements of participants led to decreasing decomposition quality for individual datasets but not as a general trend across all movement intensities. The cleaning strength had less impact on decomposition results than anticipated, and moderate cleaning of the data resulted in the best decompositions. SignificanceOur results indicate that the AMICA algorithm is very robust even with limited data cleaning. Moderate amounts of cleaning such as 5 to 10 iterations of the AMICA sample rejection with 3 standard deviations as the threshold will likely improve the decomposition of most datasets, irrespective of the movement intensity.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
44.8%
2
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
3
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
5
Clinical Neurophysiology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
6
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
7
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.3%
8
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
9
Brain Topography
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.8%
11
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.4%
13
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
14
Psychophysiology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
15
Aperture Neuro
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
16
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
17
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
Cortex
102 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
19
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
81 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
20
Behavior Research Methods
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
38 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
23
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
24
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
25
Neuroscience Letters
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
26
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%