OBJECTIVE: A concentric spheres model was used in an earlier paper to estimate the effects of volume conduction, reference electrode and spatial filtering on different EEG coherence measures. EEG data are used here to verify theoretical predictions. METHODS: Three EEG data sets were: (1) 64 channel, recorded during 7 alternating periods of resting and mental calculation. (2) 128 channel, for comparison of eyes open versus eyes closed coherence. (3) 128 channel, recorded during deep sleep (stages 3 and 4) and REM. RESULTS: The directions of large scale (lobeal) coherency changes between brain states are relatively independent of coherence measure. However, coherence between specific electrode pairs is sensitive to method and frequency. Average reference and digitally linked mastoids provide reasonable semi-quantitative estimates of large-scale neocortical source coherence. Close bipolar, Laplacian, and dura image methods remove most reference electrode and volume conduction distortion, but may underestimate coherence by spatial filtering. CONCLUSION: Each EEG coherence method has its own potential sources of error and provides coherence estimates for different neural population sizes located in different locations. Thus, studies of coherence and brain state should include several different kinds of estimates to take full advantage of information in recorded signals.
OBJECTIVE: A concentric spheres model was used in an earlier paper to estimate the effects of volume conduction, reference electrode and spatial filtering on different EEG coherence measures. EEG data are used here to verify theoretical predictions. METHODS: Three EEG data sets were: (1) 64 channel, recorded during 7 alternating periods of resting and mental calculation. (2) 128 channel, for comparison of eyes open versus eyes closed coherence. (3) 128 channel, recorded during deep sleep (stages 3 and 4) and REM. RESULTS: The directions of large scale (lobeal) coherency changes between brain states are relatively independent of coherence measure. However, coherence between specific electrode pairs is sensitive to method and frequency. Average reference and digitally linked mastoids provide reasonable semi-quantitative estimates of large-scale neocortical source coherence. Close bipolar, Laplacian, and dura image methods remove most reference electrode and volume conduction distortion, but may underestimate coherence by spatial filtering. CONCLUSION: Each EEG coherence method has its own potential sources of error and provides coherence estimates for different neural population sizes located in different locations. Thus, studies of coherence and brain state should include several different kinds of estimates to take full advantage of information in recorded signals.
Authors: C Campus; L Brayda; F De Carli; R Chellali; F Famà; C Bruzzo; L Lucagrossi; G Rodriguez Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Andreas Keil; Vincent Costa; J Carson Smith; Dean Sabatinelli; E Menton McGinnis; Margaret M Bradley; Peter J Lang Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 5.038