| Literature DB >> 32410940 |
Stanimira Georgieva1, Suzannah Lester1, Valdas Noreika1, Meryem Nazli Yilmaz1, Sam Wass2, Victoria Leong1,3.
Abstract
Electroencephalography (EEG) is perhaps the most widely used brain-imaging technique for pediatric populations. However, EEG signals are prone to distortion by motion. Compared to adults, infants' motion is both more frequent and less stereotypical yet motion effects on the infant EEG signal are largely undocumented. Here, we present a systematic assessment of naturalistic motion effects on the infant EEG signal. EEG recordings were performed with 14 infants (12 analyzed) who passively watched movies whilst spontaneously producing periods of bodily movement and rest. Each infant produced an average of 38.3 s (SD = 14.7 s) of rest and 18.8 s (SD = 17.9 s) of single motion segments for the final analysis. Five types of infant motions were analyzed: Jaw movements, and Limb movements of the Hand, Arm, Foot, and Leg. Significant movement-related distortions of the EEG signal were detected using cluster-based permutation analysis. This analysis revealed that, relative to resting state, infants' Jaw and Arm movements produced significant increases in beta (∼15 Hz) power, particularly over peripheral sites. Jaw movements produced more anteriorly located effects than Arm movements, which were most pronounced over posterior parietal and occipital sites. The cluster analysis also revealed trends toward decreased power in the theta and alpha bands observed over central topographies for all motion types. However, given the very limited quantity of infant data in this study, caution is recommended in interpreting these findings before subsequent replications are conducted. Nonetheless, this work is an important first step to inform future development of methods for addressing EEG motion-related artifacts. This work also supports wider use of naturalistic paradigms in social and developmental neuroscience.Entities:
Keywords: electroencephalography; infants; motion artifacts; naturalistic paradigm; signal distortion
Year: 2020 PMID: 32410940 PMCID: PMC7199478 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00352
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
FIGURE 1Experimental Setup. Infants were seated on a highchair next to their mothers. A camera, placed in a central location in front of participants, recorded infants’ behavior and motions. (A) (left) illustrates resting state behavior, when the infant showed no visible motion. (B) (right) illustrates leg movement by the infant. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents for the publication of these images.
FIGURE 3Topographical and spectral differences in infant EEG power for (A,B) Arm and (C) Jaw Movements relative to resting state. The line plots below show the power spectra for motion (black line) and resting state (red line). Panel D shows a map of the locations of the electrodes on the head. A,B and C: The horizontal blue line on the x-axis indicates the frequency range over which significant differences in power were observed. The vertical blue line shows the peak difference in frequency and the headplots above this show the scalp topography of the cluster at the peak difference in frequency. Gray areas in the headplots (A,C) show non-significant difference. The color bars indicate differenced power.
EEG channels rejected for each infant and movement type.
| 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 3 | CP5 | – | – | CP5 | – | CP5 |
| 4 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 5 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 6 | T7, TP9 | T7, TP9 | – | TP9, P7 | – | TP9 |
| 7 | TP9 | – | TP9 | TP9 | – | TP9 |
| 8 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 9 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 10 | C3, CP2 | – | C3, CP2 | – | – | – |
| 11 | – | – | – | Cz, TP9 | TP9 | Cz |
| 12 | T7 | – | – | – | – | T7 |
Total duration (in seconds) of clean pre-processed isolated motion and resting state EEG contributed for the final analysis by each infant.
| 1 | 15 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 19 |
| 2 | 46 | – | 14 | 11 | 8 | 27 |
| 3 | 53 | 8 | – | 10 | – | 57 |
| 4 | 33 | 14 | – | 6 | – | – |
| 5 | 10 | 18 | 12 | 10 | 4 | 18 |
| 6 | 36 | 10 | 27 | 11 | – | 21 |
| 7 | 34 | – | 25 | 28 | – | 14 |
| 8 | 36 | 4 | – | – | – | 4 |
| 9 | 44 | – | 41 | 9 | – | 5 |
| 10 | 59 | – | 27 | – | – | – |
| 11 | 54 | – | 36 | 27 | 93 | 51 |
| 12 | 40 | – | – | 5 | – | 6 |
| Average(SD) | 38.3(14.7) | 10.3(5) | 23.6(11.9) | 12.2(8.4) | 27.3(43.9) | 22.2(18.4) |
FIGURE 2Scalp topographies of infant EEG power for (A) Resting state; (B) Facial movements; and (C) Limb movements; Power is z-normalized power [uV2/Hz], averaged over infants. Red indicates a region of above-average power, and blue indicates a region of below-average power.