ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2008
Bootstrap significance of low SNR evoked response.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measure functional network and cortical excitability in post-anoxic patients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome diagnosed by behavioral scales.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Assessing recurrent interactions in cortical networks: Modeling EEG response to transcranial magnetic stimulation.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2019Article
- Bootstrap Signal-to-Noise Confidence Intervals: An Objective Method for Subject Exclusion and Quality Control in ERP Studies.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2016Article
- Plasticity in neuromagnetic cortical responses suggests enhanced auditory object representation.BMC neuroscience · 2013Article
- Recovery of cortical effective connectivity and recovery of consciousness in vegetative patients.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2012Article
- Fetal Magnetoencephalography - Achievements and Challenges in the Study of Prenatal and Early Postnatal Brain Responses: A Review.Infant and child development · 2010Article
- Article
- Validation of the flash-evoked response from fetal MEG.Physics in medicine and biology · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In order to obtain adequate signal to noise ratio (SNR), stimulus-evoked brain signals are averaged over a large number of trials. However, in certain applications, e.g. fetal magnetoencephalography (MEG), this approach fails due to underlying conditions (inherently small signals, non-stationary/poorly characterized signals, or limited number of trials). The resulting low SNR makes it difficult to reliably identify a response by visual examination of the averaged time course, even after pre-processing to attenuate interference. The purpose of this work was to devise an intuitive statistical significance test for low SNR situations, based on non-parametric bootstrap resampling. We compared a two-parameter measure of p-value and statistical power with a bootstrap equal means test and a traditional rank test using fetal MEG data collected with a light flash stimulus. We found that the two-parameter measure generally agreed with established measures, while p-value alone was overly optimistic. In an extension of our approach, we compared methods to estimate the background noise. A method based on surrogate averages resulted in the most robust estimate. In summary we have developed a flexible and intuitively satisfying bootstrap-based significance measure incorporating appropriate noise estimation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.