4.3 Article

A Comparative Study of the Robustness of Frequency-Domain Connectivity Measures to Finite Data Length

期刊

BRAIN TOPOGRAPHY
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 675-695

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10548-017-0609-4

关键词

Dynamic functional connectivity; Imaginary part of coherency; Generalized partial directed coherence; Frequency-domain granger causality; Surrogate data; EEG

资金

  1. grant Functional connectivity and neuroplasticity in physiological and pathological aging, PRIN 20102011 [2010SH7H3F_006]
  2. grant Breaking the Nonuniqueness Barrier in Electromagnetic Neuroimaging (BREAKBEN), H2020-FETO-PEN-2014-2015/H2020-FETOPEN-2014-2015-RIA [686865]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work we use numerical simulation to investigate how the temporal length of the data affects the reliability of the estimates of brain connectivity from EEG time-series. We assume that the neural sources follow a stable MultiVariate AutoRegressive model, and consider three connectivity metrics: imaginary part of coherency (IC), generalized partial directed coherence (gPDC) and frequency-domain granger causality (fGC). In order to assess the statistical significance of the estimated values, we use the surrogate data test by generating phase-randomized and autoregressive surrogate data. We first consider the ideal case where we know the source time courses exactly. Here we show how, expectedly, even exact knowledge of the source time courses is not sufficient to provide reliable estimates of the connectivity when the number of samples gets small; however, while gPDC and fGC tend to provide a larger number of false positives, the IC becomes less sensitive to the presence of connectivity. Then we proceed with more realistic simulations, where the source time courses are estimated using eLORETA, and the EEG signal is affected by biological noise of increasing intensity. Using the ideal case as a reference, we show that the impact of biological noise on IC estimates is qualitatively different from the impact on gPDC and fGC.

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

4.3
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