ArticlePsychophysiology2023
Impact of reduced-dimensionality independent components analysis on event-related potential measurements.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The order of attentional focus instructions affects how postural control processes compensate for multisensory mismatch: a crossover study.Experimental brain research · 2023Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Independent components analysis (ICA) is an effective and ubiquitous tool for cleaning EEG. To reduce computation time, many analysis pipelines decrease EEG dimensionality prior to ICA. A 2018 report by Artoni and colleagues detailed the deleterious effects of such reduced-dimensionality ICA (rdICA) on the dipolarity and reliability of independent components. Though valuable for researchers interested in directly analyzing independent components, ICA is more commonly used for cleaning EEG. Thus, a direct examination of the impact of artifact removal via rdICA on EEG data quality is needed. We conducted a registered analysis of 128 electrode recordings of 43 healthy subjects performing an active auditory oddball task. We preprocessed each subject's data under the following conditions: (1) ICA without dimension reduction, (2) ICA with only 64 electrodes included, (3) ICA preceded by PCA retaining 99% of the original data variance and (4) ICA preceded by PCA retaining 90% variance. We then quantified ERP data quality by measuring mean-amplitude, standardized measurement error (SME) of the single-trial mean-amplitudes, and split-half reliability of the N1 and P3 components. We then attempted to replicate our findings in an independent validation dataset. We observed statistically and practically significant changes in the mean amplitude of early sensory components for the 90% condition. Unexpectedly, the SME was only larger for the 64 electrode condition. Also unexpectedly, the effect of rdICA on split-half reliability was inconsistent between datasets. Based on the observed data, we argue that PCA-based rdICA is justifiable when used cautiously.
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.