Issues relating to the subtraction phase in EOG artefact correction of the EEG

被引:35
作者
Croft, RJ
Barry, RJ
机构
[1] Univ Wollongong, Brain & Behav Res Inst, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
[2] Univ London Imperial Coll Sci Technol & Med, Sch Med, Dept Cognit Neurosci & Behav, London W6 8RF, England
[3] Univ Wollongong, Dept Psychol, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
关键词
EEG; EOG; correction; ocular artefact; subtraction phase; forward propagation;
D O I
10.1016/S0167-8760(01)00201-X
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
An important method for removing the effect of ocular artefact from the EEG is 'EOG correction'. This method estimates the proportion of ocular artefact that is in the EEG, and removes it by subtraction. To date, EOG correction research has focused on problems relating to the estimation of the correction coefficients. Using both mathematical rationale and empirical data, this paper addresses issues relating to the subtraction phase, such as the magnitude of error that can be expected due to EOG correction. Using ERP methodology, principal component and regression analyses, it is shown that the N1P2 complex propagates forward to the horizontal and radial (but not vertical) electrooculograms (EOG), and it is shown mathematically that this will result in EOG-correction error. Assuming an accurate estimate of ocular contamination of the EEG, maximal subtraction-phase error of the N1P2 complex was found to be a prefrontal attenuation of 15-22%, decreasing to central and occipital enhancements of 3-4% and 13-14%, respectively. The magnitude of this subtraction-phase error is compared to between-subject ERP variability and to error associated with EOG rejection (omitting data contaminated by ocular artefact). It is argued that such EOG correction error is small relative to both artefact rejection procedures and to normal variability found in ERP studies, and that it is less pernicious than artefact rejection procedures. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:187 / 195
页数:9
相关论文
共 21 条
[11]   Removal of eye activity artifacts from visual event-related potentials in normal and clinical subjects [J].
Jung, TP ;
Makeig, S ;
Westerfield, M ;
Townsend, J ;
Courchesne, E ;
Sejnowski, TJ .
CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2000, 111 (10) :1745-1758
[12]   Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation [J].
Jung, TP ;
Makeig, S ;
Humphries, C ;
Lee, TW ;
McKeown, MJ ;
Iragui, V ;
Sejnowski, TJ .
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 2000, 37 (02) :163-178
[13]   A NEW ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM ASSOCIATED WITH THINKING [J].
KENNEDY, JL ;
GOTTSDANKER, RM ;
ARMINGTON, JC ;
GRAY, FE .
SCIENCE, 1948, 108 (2811) :527-529
[14]   P300 and blink instructions [J].
Ochoa, CJ ;
Polich, J .
CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 2000, 111 (01) :93-98
[15]   A SOLUTION FOR RELIABLE AND VALID REDUCTION OF OCULAR ARTIFACTS, APPLIED TO THE P300 ERP [J].
SEMLITSCH, HV ;
ANDERER, P ;
SCHUSTER, P ;
PRESSLICH, O .
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 1986, 23 (06) :695-703
[16]   VALID IDENTIFICATION OF BLINK ARTIFACTS - ARE THEY LARGER THAN 50 MU-V IN EEG RECORDS [J].
VERLEGER, R .
ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY AND CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 1993, 87 (06) :354-363
[17]   THE INSTRUCTION TO REFRAIN FROM BLINKING AFFECTS AUDITORY P3 AND N1-AMPLITUDES [J].
VERLEGER, R .
ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY AND CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 1991, 78 (03) :240-251
[18]   CORRECTION OF EOG ARTIFACTS IN EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS OF THE EEG - ASPECTS OF RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY [J].
VERLEGER, R ;
GASSER, T ;
MOCKS, J .
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 1982, 19 (04) :472-480
[19]   Extraction of ocular artefacts from EEG using independent component analysis [J].
Vigario, RN .
ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY AND CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY, 1997, 103 (03) :395-404
[20]  
Weerts T C, 1973, Biol Psychol, V1, P1, DOI 10.1016/0301-0511(73)90010-0