Y Liu1, W G Coon, A de Pesters, P Brunner, G Schalk. 1. School of Mechanical Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, People's Republic of China. National Center for Adaptive Neurotechnologies, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Electrocorticographic (ECoG) signals contain noise that is common to all channels and noise that is specific to individual channels. Most published ECoG studies use common average reference (CAR) spatial filters to remove common noise, but CAR filters may introduce channel-specific noise into other channels. To address this concern, scientists often remove artifactual channels prior to data analysis. However, removing these channels depends on expert-based labeling and may also discard useful data. Thus, the effects of spatial filtering and artifacts on ECoG signals have been largely unknown. This study aims to quantify these effects and thereby address this gap in knowledge. APPROACH: In this study, we address these issues by exploring the effects of application of two types of unsupervised spatial filters and three methods of detecting signal artifacts using a large ECoG data set (20 subjects, four task conditions in each subject). MAIN RESULTS: Our results confirm that spatial filtering improves performance, i.e., it reduces ECoG signal variance that is not related to the task. They also show that removing artifactual channels automatically (using quantitatively defined rejection criteria) or manually (using expert opinion) does not increase the total amount of task-related information, but does avoid potential contamination from one or more noisy channels. Finally, applying a novel 'median average reference' filter does not require the elimination of artifactual channels prior to spatial filtering and still mitigates the influence of channels with channel-specific noise. Thus, it allows the investigator to retain more potentially useful task-related data. SIGNIFICANCE: In summary, our results show that appropriately designed spatial filters that account for both common noise and channel-specific noise greatly improve the quality of ECoG signal analyses, and that artifacts in only a single channel can result in profound and undesired effects on all other channels.
OBJECTIVE: Electrocorticographic (ECoG) signals contain noise that is common to all channels and noise that is specific to individual channels. Most published ECoG studies use common average reference (CAR) spatial filters to remove common noise, but CAR filters may introduce channel-specific noise into other channels. To address this concern, scientists often remove artifactual channels prior to data analysis. However, removing these channels depends on expert-based labeling and may also discard useful data. Thus, the effects of spatial filtering and artifacts on ECoG signals have been largely unknown. This study aims to quantify these effects and thereby address this gap in knowledge. APPROACH: In this study, we address these issues by exploring the effects of application of two types of unsupervised spatial filters and three methods of detecting signal artifacts using a large ECoG data set (20 subjects, four task conditions in each subject). MAIN RESULTS: Our results confirm that spatial filtering improves performance, i.e., it reduces ECoG signal variance that is not related to the task. They also show that removing artifactual channels automatically (using quantitatively defined rejection criteria) or manually (using expert opinion) does not increase the total amount of task-related information, but does avoid potential contamination from one or more noisy channels. Finally, applying a novel 'median average reference' filter does not require the elimination of artifactual channels prior to spatial filtering and still mitigates the influence of channels with channel-specific noise. Thus, it allows the investigator to retain more potentially useful task-related data. SIGNIFICANCE: In summary, our results show that appropriately designed spatial filters that account for both common noise and channel-specific noise greatly improve the quality of ECoG signal analyses, and that artifacts in only a single channel can result in profound and undesired effects on all other channels.
Authors: Dora Hermes; Jeroen C W Siero; Erik J Aarnoutse; Frans S S Leijten; Natalia Petridou; Nick F Ramsey Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Aysegul Gunduz; Peter Brunner; Amy Daitch; Eric C Leuthardt; Anthony L Ritaccio; Bijan Pesaran; Gerwin Schalk Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Soumyadipta Acharya; Matthew S Fifer; Heather L Benz; Nathan E Crone; Nitish V Thakor Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Kai J Miller; Eric C Leuthardt; Gerwin Schalk; Rajesh P N Rao; Nicholas R Anderson; Daniel W Moran; John W Miller; Jeffrey G Ojemann Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Karunesh Ganguly; Lavi Secundo; Gireeja Ranade; Amy Orsborn; Edward F Chang; Dragan F Dimitrov; Jonathan D Wallis; Nicholas M Barbaro; Robert T Knight; Jose M Carmena Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Kai J Miller; Dora Hermes; Christopher J Honey; Adam O Hebb; Nick F Ramsey; Robert T Knight; Jeffrey G Ojemann; Eberhard E Fetz Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2012-09-06 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Brian N Pasley; Stephen V David; Nima Mesgarani; Adeen Flinker; Shihab A Shamma; Nathan E Crone; Robert T Knight; Edward F Chang Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Mariana P Branco; Simon H Geukes; Erik J Aarnoutse; Mariska J Vansteensel; Zachary V Freudenburg; Nick F Ramsey Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 5.379
Authors: Jonathan K Kleen; Benjamin A Speidel; Maxime O Baud; Vikram R Rao; Simon G Ammanuel; Liberty S Hamilton; Edward F Chang; Robert C Knowlton Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Gregg A Castellucci; Christopher K Kovach; Matthew A Howard; Jeremy D W Greenlee; Michael A Long Journal: Nature Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 69.504
Authors: Ashesh D Mehta; Rafael Malach; Tal Golan; Ido Davidesco; Meir Meshulam; David M Groppe; Pierre Mégevand; Erin M Yeagle; Matthew S Goldfinger; Michal Harel; Lucia Melloni; Charles E Schroeder; Leon Y Deouell Journal: Elife Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Sivylla E Paraskevopoulou; William G Coon; Peter Brunner; Kai J Miller; Gerwin Schalk Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 6.556