Daniel M Alschuler1, Craig E Tenke2, Gerard E Bruder2, Jürgen Kayser2. 1. Division of Cognitive Neuroscience, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: alschul@nyspi.columbia.edu. 2. Division of Cognitive Neuroscience, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: EEG topographies may be distorted by electrode bridges, typically caused by electrolyte spreading between adjacent electrodes. We therefore sought to determine the prevalence of electrode bridging and its potential impact on the EEG literature. METHODS: Five publicly-available EEG datasets were evaluated for evidence of bridging using a new screening method that employs the temporal variance of pairwise difference waveforms (electrical distance). Distinctive characteristics of electrical distance frequency distributions were used to develop an algorithm to identify electrode bridges in datasets with different montages (22-64 channels) and noise properties. RESULTS: The extent of bridging varied substantially across datasets: 54% of EEG recording sessions contained an electrode bridge, and the mean percentage of bridged electrodes in a montage was as high as 18% in one of the datasets. Furthermore, over 40% of the recording channels were bridged in 9 of 203 sessions. These findings were independently validated by visual inspection. CONCLUSIONS: The new algorithm conveniently, efficiently, and reliably identified electrode bridges across different datasets and recording conditions. Electrode bridging may constitute a substantial problem for some datasets. SIGNIFICANCE: Given the extent of the electrode bridging across datasets, this problem may be more widespread than commonly thought. However, when used as an automatic screening routine, the new algorithm will prevent pitfalls stemming from unrecognized electrode bridges.
OBJECTIVE: EEG topographies may be distorted by electrode bridges, typically caused by electrolyte spreading between adjacent electrodes. We therefore sought to determine the prevalence of electrode bridging and its potential impact on the EEG literature. METHODS: Five publicly-available EEG datasets were evaluated for evidence of bridging using a new screening method that employs the temporal variance of pairwise difference waveforms (electrical distance). Distinctive characteristics of electrical distance frequency distributions were used to develop an algorithm to identify electrode bridges in datasets with different montages (22-64 channels) and noise properties. RESULTS: The extent of bridging varied substantially across datasets: 54% of EEG recording sessions contained an electrode bridge, and the mean percentage of bridged electrodes in a montage was as high as 18% in one of the datasets. Furthermore, over 40% of the recording channels were bridged in 9 of 203 sessions. These findings were independently validated by visual inspection. CONCLUSIONS: The new algorithm conveniently, efficiently, and reliably identified electrode bridges across different datasets and recording conditions. Electrode bridging may constitute a substantial problem for some datasets. SIGNIFICANCE: Given the extent of the electrode bridging across datasets, this problem may be more widespread than commonly thought. However, when used as an automatic screening routine, the new algorithm will prevent pitfalls stemming from unrecognized electrode bridges.
Authors: A L Goldberger; L A Amaral; L Glass; J M Hausdorff; P C Ivanov; R G Mark; J E Mietus; G B Moody; C K Peng; H E Stanley Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-06-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lawrence L Greischar; Cory A Burghy; Carien M van Reekum; Daren C Jackson; Diego A Pizzagalli; Corrina Mueller; Richard J Davidson Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Craig E Tenke; Jürgen Kayser; Stewart A Shankman; Carlye B Griggs; Paul Leite; Jonathan W Stewart; Gerard E Bruder Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: Jürgen Kayser; Craig E Tenke; Christopher J Kroppmann; Daniel M Alschuler; Shiva Fekri; Shelly Ben-David; Cheryl M Corcoran; Gerard E Bruder Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: Craig E Tenke; Jürgen Kayser; Pia Pechtel; Christian A Webb; Daniel G Dillon; Franziska Goer; Laura Murray; Patricia Deldin; Benji T Kurian; Patrick J McGrath; Ramin Parsey; Madhukar Trivedi; Maurizio Fava; Myrna M Weissman; Melvin McInnis; Karen Abraham; Jorge E Alvarenga; Daniel M Alschuler; Crystal Cooper; Diego A Pizzagalli; Gerard E Bruder Journal: Psychophysiology Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Ezra E Smith; Craig E Tenke; Patricia J Deldin; Madhukar H Trivedi; Myrna M Weissman; Randy P Auerbach; Gerard E Bruder; Diego A Pizzagalli; Jürgen Kayser Journal: Psychophysiology Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Craig E Tenke; Jürgen Kayser; Karen Abraham; Jorge E Alvarenga; Gerard E Bruder Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: Craig E Tenke; Jürgen Kayser; Jorge E Alvarenga; Karen S Abraham; Virginia Warner; Ardesheer Talati; Myrna M Weissman; Gerard E Bruder Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Jürgen Kayser; Craig E Tenke; Karen S Abraham; Daniel M Alschuler; Jorge E Alvarenga; Jamie Skipper; Virginia Warner; Gerard E Bruder; Myrna M Weissman Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 6.556