OBJECTIVE: Bipolar montages are routinely employed for the interpretation of scalp and intracranial EEGs (icEEGs). In this manuscript we consider the assumptions that support the use of a bipolar montage and question the universal appropriateness of bipolar representation of icEEGs for the time-series analysis of these signals. Bipolar montages introduce an element of spatial processing into the observed time-series. In the case of icEEGs, we argue ambiguity may be introduced in some settings through this operation because of a lack of certifiability of local differentiability and continuity of the spatial structure of icEEGs, and their suboptimal spatial sampling. METHODS: Example icEEGs were collected from three patients being studied for possible resective epilepsy surgery. Referential and bipolar representations of these signals were subjected to different visual and time-series analysis. The time-series measures calculated were the power spectral density and magnitude squared coherence. RESULTS: Visual analysis and time-series measures revealed that the icEEG time-series was altered by the use of a bipolar montage. The changes resulted from either the introduction of unrelated information from the two referential time-series into the bipolar time-series, or from the removal or alteration of information common to the two referential time-series in the bipolar time-series. The changes could not be predicted without prior knowledge of the relationship between measurement sites that form the bipolar montage. CONCLUSIONS: In certain settings, bipolar montages alter icEEGs and can confound the time-series analysis of these signals. In such settings, bipolar montages should be used with caution in the time-series analysis of icEEGs. SIGNIFICANCE: This manuscript addresses the representation of the intracranial EEG for time-series analysis. There may be contexts where the assumptions underpinning correct application of the bipolar montage to the intracranial EEG are not satisfied.
OBJECTIVE: Bipolar montages are routinely employed for the interpretation of scalp and intracranial EEGs (icEEGs). In this manuscript we consider the assumptions that support the use of a bipolar montage and question the universal appropriateness of bipolar representation of icEEGs for the time-series analysis of these signals. Bipolar montages introduce an element of spatial processing into the observed time-series. In the case of icEEGs, we argue ambiguity may be introduced in some settings through this operation because of a lack of certifiability of local differentiability and continuity of the spatial structure of icEEGs, and their suboptimal spatial sampling. METHODS: Example icEEGs were collected from three patients being studied for possible resective epilepsy surgery. Referential and bipolar representations of these signals were subjected to different visual and time-series analysis. The time-series measures calculated were the power spectral density and magnitude squared coherence. RESULTS: Visual analysis and time-series measures revealed that the icEEG time-series was altered by the use of a bipolar montage. The changes resulted from either the introduction of unrelated information from the two referential time-series into the bipolar time-series, or from the removal or alteration of information common to the two referential time-series in the bipolar time-series. The changes could not be predicted without prior knowledge of the relationship between measurement sites that form the bipolar montage. CONCLUSIONS: In certain settings, bipolar montages alter icEEGs and can confound the time-series analysis of these signals. In such settings, bipolar montages should be used with caution in the time-series analysis of icEEGs. SIGNIFICANCE: This manuscript addresses the representation of the intracranial EEG for time-series analysis. There may be contexts where the assumptions underpinning correct application of the bipolar montage to the intracranial EEG are not satisfied.
Authors: Supachan Traitruengsakul; Laurie E Seltzer; Alex R Paciorkowski; Behnaz Ghoraani Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Amin Zandvakili; Noah S Philip; Stephanie R Jones; Audrey R Tyrka; Benjamin D Greenberg; Linda L Carpenter Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Rafeed Alkawadri; Nicolas Gaspard; Irina I Goncharova; Dennis D Spencer; Jason L Gerrard; Hitten Zaveri; Robert B Duckrow; Hal Blumenfeld; Lawrence J Hirsch Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Pierre Mégevand; Manuel R Mercier; David M Groppe; Elana Zion Golumbic; Nima Mesgarani; Michael S Beauchamp; Charles E Schroeder; Ashesh D Mehta Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2020-10-06 Impact factor: 6.167