4.7 Article

Optimal referencing for stereo-electroencephalographic (SEEG) recordings

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 183, 期 -, 页码 327-335

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.020

关键词

Stereo-electroencephalography; SEEG; Referencing method; Signal quality; Noise subtraction

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [P41-EB018783, P50-MH109429]
  2. US Army Research Office [W911NF-14-1-0440]
  3. Fondazione Neurone
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61761166006, 51475292]
  5. Natural Science Foundation and Major Basic Research Program of Shanghai [16JC1420102]
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING [P41EB018783, R01EB026439] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [P50MH109429] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [U01NS108916] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) is an intracranial recording technique in which depth electrodes are inserted in the brain as part of presurgical assessments for invasive brain surgery. SEEG recordings can tap into neural signals across the entire brain and thereby sample both cortical and subcortical sites. However, even though signal referencing is important for proper assessment of SEEG signals, no previous study has comprehensively evaluated the optimal referencing method for SEEG. In our study, we recorded SEEG data from 15 human subjects during a motor task, referencing them against the average of two white matter contacts (monopolar reference). We then subjected these signals to 5 different re-referencing approaches: common average reference (CAR), gray-white matter reference (GWR), electrode shaft reference (ESR), bipolar reference, and Laplacian reference. The results from three different signal quality metrics suggest the use of the Laplacian rereference for study of local population-level activity and low-frequency oscillatory activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据