4.6 Article

Semi-automatic identification of independent components representing EEG artifact

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 120, 期 5, 页码 868-877

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2009.01.015

关键词

Independent component analysis; ICA; EEG; Eye blinks; Lateral eye movements; Artifact correction

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia, Lisbon, Portugal [SFRH/BD/37662/2007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Independent component analysis (ICA) can disentangle multi-channel electroencephalogram (EEG) signals into a number of artifacts and brain-related signals. However, the identification and interpretation of independent components is time-consuming and involves subjective decision making. We developed and evaluated a semi-automatic tool designed for clustering independent components from different subjects and/or EEG recordings. Methods: CORRMAP is an open-source EEGLAB plug-in, based on the correlation of ICA inverse weights, and finds independent components that are similar to a user-defined template. Component similarity is measured using a correlation procedure that selects components that pass a threshold. The threshold can be either user-defined or determined automatically. CORRMAP clustering performance was evaluated by comparing it with the performance of 11 users from different laboratories familiar with ICA. Results: For eye-related artifacts, a very high degree of overlap between users (phi > 0.80), and between users and CORRMAP (phi > 0.80) was observed. Lower degrees of association were found for heartbeat artifact components, between users (phi < 0.70), and between users and CORRMAP (phi < 0.65). Conclusions: These results demonstrate that CORRMAP provides an efficient, convenient and objective way of clustering independent components. Significance: CORRMAP helps to efficiently use ICA for the removal EEG artifacts. (C) 2009 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland 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