OBJECTIVE: High-density electroencephelography (EEG) can provide an insight into human brain function during real-world activities with walking. Some recent studies have used EEG to characterize brain activity during walking, but the relative contributions of movement artifact and electrocortical activity have been difficult to quantify. We aimed to characterize movement artifact recorded by EEG electrodes at a range of walking speeds and to test the efficacy of artifact removal methods. We also quantified the similarity between movement artifact recorded by EEG electrodes and a head-mounted accelerometer. APPROACH: We used a novel experimental method to isolate and record movement artifact with EEG electrodes during walking. We blocked electrophysiological signals using a nonconductive layer (silicone swim cap) and simulated an electrically conductive scalp on top of the swim cap using a wig coated with conductive gel. We recorded motion artifact EEG data from nine young human subjects walking on a treadmill at speeds from 0.4 to 1.6 m s(-1). We then tested artifact removal methods including moving average and wavelet-based techniques. MAIN RESULTS: Movement artifact recorded with EEG electrodes varied considerably, across speed, subject, and electrode location. The movement artifact measured with EEG electrodes did not correlate well with head acceleration. All of the tested artifact removal methods attenuated low-frequency noise but did not completely remove movement artifact. The spectral power fluctuations in the movement artifact data resembled data from some previously published studies of EEG during walking. SIGNIFICANCE: Our results suggest that EEG data recorded during walking likely contains substantial movement artifact that: cannot be explained by head accelerations; varies across speed, subject, and channel; and cannot be removed using traditional signal processing methods. Future studies should focus on more sophisticated methods for removal of EEG movement artifact to advance the field.
OBJECTIVE: High-density electroencephelography (EEG) can provide an insight into human brain function during real-world activities with walking. Some recent studies have used EEG to characterize brain activity during walking, but the relative contributions of movement artifact and electrocortical activity have been difficult to quantify. We aimed to characterize movement artifact recorded by EEG electrodes at a range of walking speeds and to test the efficacy of artifact removal methods. We also quantified the similarity between movement artifact recorded by EEG electrodes and a head-mounted accelerometer. APPROACH: We used a novel experimental method to isolate and record movement artifact with EEG electrodes during walking. We blocked electrophysiological signals using a nonconductive layer (silicone swim cap) and simulated an electrically conductive scalp on top of the swim cap using a wig coated with conductive gel. We recorded motion artifact EEG data from nine young human subjects walking on a treadmill at speeds from 0.4 to 1.6 m s(-1). We then tested artifact removal methods including moving average and wavelet-based techniques. MAIN RESULTS: Movement artifact recorded with EEG electrodes varied considerably, across speed, subject, and electrode location. The movement artifact measured with EEG electrodes did not correlate well with head acceleration. All of the tested artifact removal methods attenuated low-frequency noise but did not completely remove movement artifact. The spectral power fluctuations in the movement artifact data resembled data from some previously published studies of EEG during walking. SIGNIFICANCE: Our results suggest that EEG data recorded during walking likely contains substantial movement artifact that: cannot be explained by head accelerations; varies across speed, subject, and channel; and cannot be removed using traditional signal processing methods. Future studies should focus on more sophisticated methods for removal of EEG movement artifact to advance the field.
Authors: I Miyai; H C Tanabe; I Sase; H Eda; I Oda; I Konishi; Y Tsunazawa; T Suzuki; T Yanagida; K Kubota Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: G Cheron; M Duvinage; C De Saedeleer; T Castermans; A Bengoetxea; M Petieau; K Seetharaman; T Hoellinger; B Dan; T Dutoit; F Sylos Labini; F Lacquaniti; Y Ivanenko Journal: Neural Plast Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Martin Seeber; Reinhold Scherer; Johanna Wagner; Teodoro Solis-Escalante; Gernot R Müller-Putz Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Hendrik Enders; Filomeno Cortese; Christian Maurer; Jennifer Baltich; Andrea B Protzner; Benno M Nigg Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Brenda R Malcolm; John J Foxe; John S Butler; Sophie Molholm; Pierfilippo De Sanctis Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Daniel Weiss; Anna Schoellmann; Michael D Fox; Nicolaas I Bohnen; Stewart A Factor; Alice Nieuwboer; Mark Hallett; Simon J G Lewis Journal: Brain Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Colin M McCrimmon; Po T Wang; Payam Heydari; Angelica Nguyen; Susan J Shaw; Hui Gong; Luis A Chui; Charles Y Liu; Zoran Nenadic; An H Do Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Gilles Allali; Helena M Blumen; Hervé Devanne; Elvira Pirondini; Arnaud Delval; Dimitri Van De Ville Journal: Neurophysiol Clin Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.734