ArticleJournal of neural engineering2019
Combined head phantom and neural mass model validation of effective connectivity measures.
Article in Journal of neural engineering, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mobile neuroimaging: What we have learned about the neural control of human walking, with an emphasis on EEG-based research.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2024Review
- iCanClean Removes Motion, Muscle, Eye, and Line-Noise Artifacts from Phantom EEG.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Phase-Amplitude Coupling and Phase Synchronization Between Medial Temporal, Frontal and Posterior Brain Regions Support Episodic Autobiographical Memory Recall.Brain topography · 2022Article
- Interactions Between Different Age-Related Factors Affecting Balance Control in Walking.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2020Article
- Group-level cortical and muscular connectivity during perturbations to walking and standing balance.NeuroImage · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDue to its high temporal resolution, electroencephalography (EEG) has become a promising tool for quantifying cortical dynamics and effective connectivity in a mobile setting. While many connectivity estimators are available, the efficacy of these measures has not been rigorously validated in real-world scenarios. The goal of this study was to quantify the accuracy of independent component analysis and multiple connectivity measures on ground-truth connections while exposed real-world volume conduction and head motion. APPROACH: We collected high-density EEG from a phantom head with embedded antennae, using neural mass models to generate transiently interconnected signals. The head was mounted upon a motion platform that mimicked recorded human head motion at various walking speeds. We used cross-correlation and signal to noise ratio to determine how well independent component analysis recovered the original antenna signals. For connectivity measures, we computed the average and standard deviation across frequency of each estimated connectivity peak. MAIN
resultsIndependent component analysis recovered most antenna signals, as evidenced by cross-correlations primarily above 0.8, and maintained consistent signal to noise ratio values near 10 dB across walking speeds compared to scalp channel data, which had decreased signal to noise ratios of ~2 dB at fast walking speeds. The connectivity measures used were generally able to identify the true interconnections, but some measures were susceptible to spurious high-frequency connections inducing large standard deviations of ~10 Hz. SIGNIFICANCE: Our results indicate that independent component analysis and some connectivity measures can be effective at recovering underlying connections among brain areas. These results highlight the utility of validating EEG processing techniques with a combination of complex signals, phantom head use, and realistic head motion.
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.