Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29492336›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

A new ICA-based fingerprint method for the automatic removal of physiological artifacts from EEG recordings.

Gabriella Tamburro, Patrique Fiedler, David Stone, Jens Haueisen, Silvia Comani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Validation of Soft Multipin Dry EEG Electrodes.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Removal of Artifacts from EEG Signals: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gabriella TamburroBIND-Behavioral Imaging and Neural Dynamics Center, University "G. d'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Patrique FiedlerDepartment of Neurology, Casa di Cura Privata Villa Serena, Città Sant'Angelo, Italy.
David StoneBIND-Behavioral Imaging and Neural Dynamics Center, University "G. d'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Jens HaueisenInstitute of Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ilmenau, Germany.
Silvia ComaniBIND-Behavioral Imaging and Neural Dynamics Center, University "G. d'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEEG may be affected by artefacts hindering the analysis of brain signals. Data-driven methods like independent component analysis (ICA) are successful approaches to remove artefacts from the EEG. However, the ICA-based methods developed so far are often affected by limitations, such as: the need for visual inspection of the separated independent components (subjectivity problem) and, in some cases, for the independent and simultaneous recording of the inspected artefacts to identify the artefactual independent components; a potentially heavy manipulation of the EEG signals; the use of linear classification methods; the use of simulated artefacts to validate the methods; no testing in dry electrode or high-density EEG datasets; applications limited to specific conditions and electrode layouts.

methodsOur fingerprint method automatically identifies EEG ICs containing eyeblinks, eye movements, myogenic artefacts and cardiac interference by evaluating 14 temporal, spatial, spectral, and statistical features composing the IC fingerprint. Sixty-two real EEG datasets containing cued artefacts are recorded with wet and dry electrodes (128 wet and 97 dry channels). For each artefact, 10 nonlinear SVM classifiers are trained on fingerprints of expert-classified ICs. Training groups include randomly chosen wet and dry datasets decomposed in 80 ICs. The classifiers are tested on the IC-fingerprints of different datasets decomposed into 20, 50, or 80 ICs. The SVM performance is assessed in terms of accuracy, False Omission Rate (FOR), Hit Rate (HR), False Alarm Rate (FAR), and sensitivity (

resultsThe best SVM classifier for each artefact type achieved average accuracy of 1 (eyeblink), 0.98 (cardiac interference), and 0.97 (eye movement and myogenic artefact). Average classification sensitivity (p) was 1 (eyeblink), 0.997 (myogenic artefact), 0.98 (eye movement), and 0.48 (cardiac interference). Average artefact reduction ranged from a maximum of 82% for eyeblinks to a minimum of 33% for cardiac interference, depending on the effectiveness of the proposed method and the amplitude of the removed artefact. The performance of the SVM classifiers did not depend on the electrode type, whereas it was better for lower decomposition levels (50 and 20 ICs). DISCUSSION: Apart from cardiac interference, SVM performance and average artefact reduction indicate that the fingerprint method has an excellent overall performance in the automatic detection of eyeblinks, eye movements and myogenic artefacts, which is comparable to that of existing methods. Being also independent from simultaneous artefact recording, electrode number, type and layout, and decomposition level, the proposed fingerprint method can have useful applications in clinical and experimental EEG settings.

Indexed as

Artifact removalEEGICAIC fingerprint

Identifiers

PMID29492336
PMCPMC5826009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.