Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study

dc.contributorAalto-yliopistofi
dc.contributorAalto Universityen
dc.contributor.authorHaumann, Niels Trusbaken_US
dc.contributor.authorParkkonen, Laurien_US
dc.contributor.authorKliuchko, Marinaen_US
dc.contributor.authorVuust, Peteren_US
dc.contributor.authorBrattico, Elviraen_US
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineeringen
dc.contributor.organizationAarhus Universityen_US
dc.contributor.organizationUniversity of Helsinkien_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-11T07:38:36Z
dc.date.available2017-05-11T07:38:36Z
dc.date.issued2016en_US
dc.description.abstractWe here compared results achieved by applying popular methods for reducing artifacts in magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG) recordings of the auditory evoked Mismatch Negativity (MMN) responses in healthy adult subjects. We compared the Signal Space Separation (SSS) and temporal SSS (tSSS) methods for reducing noise from external and nearby sources. Our results showed that tSSS reduces the interference level more reliably than plain SSS, particularly for MEG gradiometers, also for healthy subjects not wearing strongly interfering magnetic material. Therefore, tSSS is recommended over SSS. Furthermore, we found that better artifact correction is achieved by applying Independent Component Analysis (ICA) in comparison to Signal Space Projection (SSP). Although SSP reduces the baseline noise level more than ICA, SSP also significantly reduces the signal - slightly more than it reduces the artifacts interfering with the signal. However, ICA also adds noise, or correction errors, to the waveform when the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the original data is relatively low - in particular to EEG and to MEG magnetometer data. In conclusion, ICA is recommended over SSP, but one should be careful when applying ICA to reduce artifacts on neurophysiological data with relatively low SNR.en
dc.description.versionPeer revieweden
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.identifier.citationHaumann, N T, Parkkonen, L, Kliuchko, M, Vuust, P & Brattico, E 2016, 'Comparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Study', Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2016, 7489108, pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7489108en
dc.identifier.doi10.1155/2016/7489108en_US
dc.identifier.issn1687-5265
dc.identifier.issn1687-5273
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 66427c8c-9685-4c75-b88a-ab011c0c1899en_US
dc.identifier.otherPURE ITEMURL: https://research.aalto.fi/en/publications/66427c8c-9685-4c75-b88a-ab011c0c1899en_US
dc.identifier.otherPURE FILEURL: https://research.aalto.fi/files/11443873/7489108.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttps://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/25566
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:aalto-201705113950
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWiley
dc.relation.ispartofseriesComputational Intelligence and Neuroscienceen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesVolume 2016, pp. 1-10en
dc.rightsopenAccessen
dc.titleComparing the Performance of Popular MEG/EEG Artifact Correction Methods in an Evoked-Response Studyen
dc.typeA1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessäfi
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion

Files