Back

The impact of downsampling on data quality, univariate measurement and multivariate pattern analysis in event-related potential research

zhang, g.; Wang, X.; Xin, Y.; Cong, F.; He, W.; Luo, W.

2025-12-26 neuroscience
10.64898/2025.12.24.696322 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The choice of sampling rate is a critical preprocessing step in event-related potential (ERP) research, yet its impact on different analytic approaches remains underexplored. In this study, we systematically evaluated how downsampling affects data quality measured via Standardized Measurement Error (SME), conventional univariate ERP metrics (mean amplitude, peak amplitude, peak latency, and 50% area latency), and multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA; decoding). We analyzed seven commonly studied ERP components: P3, N400, N170, N2pc, mismatch negativity, error-related negativity, and lateralized readiness potential collected from neurotypical young adults. Results showed that both amplitude- and latency-based scores were significantly affected by sampling rate changes, particularly for 50% area latency that presented increased SME (reduced data quality) at lower sampling rates. Amplitude-based measures and their corresponding effect sizes were more influenced by sampling rate variations, whereas latency-based measures were comparatively stable across different temporal resolutions. In contrast, multivariate decoding performance remained highly robust, with decoding accuracy and effect sizes showing minimal variation even at the lowest sampling rate (e.g., 64 Hz). Overall, these findings suggest that caution should be exercised when employing lower sampling rates for data quality and conventional univariate ERP analyses. Nevertheless, lower sampling rates (e.g., 64 Hz) may still be appropriate for decoding analyses, particularly in studies where precise temporal resolution is not critical. For researchers analyzing ERP data with similar components, noise levels, and participant populations as in this study, following these recommendations should yield robust statistical power.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
106 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
2
Psychophysiology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 11%
8.2%
4
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 2%
7.0%
5
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.2%
6
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.2%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.9%
8
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
9
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
10
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
81 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.0%
11
European Journal of Neuroscience
168 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
12
Clinical Neurophysiology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
13
Neuroscience Letters
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
14
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
15
Cortex
102 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
16
Cerebral Cortex
357 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.6%
17
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.6%
18
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
19
Biological Psychology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
20
Brain Research
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Neuroimage: Reports
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
23
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
24
International Journal of Psychophysiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
25
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
26
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
27
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
28
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%