4.6 Article

Remarks on the analysis of steady-state responses: Spurious artifacts introduced by overlapping epochs

期刊

CORTEX
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 370-378

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2021.05.023

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Union [695710]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [695710] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This commentary discusses the quantification of neural entrainment, pointing out limitations in previous research methods and proposing alternative measures. Experimental results on simulated datasets showed that the original overlapping epochs method inevitably leads to methodological artifacts, and is not recommended.
Periodic and stable sensory input can result in rhythmic and stable neural responses, a phenomenon commonly referred to as neural entrainment. Although the use of neural entrainment to investigate the regularities the brain tracks has increased in recent years, the methods used for its quantification are not well-defined in the literature. Here we argue that some strategies used in previous papers, are inadequate for the study of steady-state response, and lead to methodological artefacts. The aim of this commentary is to discuss these articles and to propose alternative measures of neural entrainment. Specifically, we applied four possible alternatives and two epoching approaches reported in the literature to quantify neural entrainment on simulated datasets. Our results demonstrate that overlapping epochs, as used in the original Batterink and colleagues articles, inevitably lead to a methodological artefact at the frequency corresponding to the overlap. We therefore strongly discourage this approach and encourage the re-analysis of data based on overlapping epochs. Additionally, we argue that the use of time-frequency decomposition to compute phase coherence at low frequencies to reveal neural entrainment is not optimal. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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