Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37397984›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Optimal Filters for ERP Research II: Recommended Settings for Seven Common ERP Components.

Guanghui Zhang, David R Garrett, Steven J Luck

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Guanghui ZhangCenter for Mind and Brain, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, 95618, USA.
David R GarrettCenter for Mind and Brain, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, 95618, USA.
Steven J LuckCenter for Mind and Brain, University of California-Davis, Davis, California, 95618, USA.

Funding

ERPLAB: Extensible, open source software for analysis of event-related potentialsR01MH087450 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI LUCK, STEVEN J · 2010 to 2025
$2.7M
Yearly Workshop in the Event-Related Potential TechniqueR25MH080794 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Emily S. Kappenman, STEVEN J LUCK · 2007 to 2026
$2.6M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH087450NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH080794
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In research with event-related potentials (ERPs), aggressive filters can substantially improve the signal-to-noise ratio and maximize statistical power, but they can also produce significant waveform distortion. Although this tradeoff has been well documented, the field lacks recommendations for filter cutoffs that quantitatively address both of these competing considerations. To fill this gap, we quantified the effects of a broad range of low-pass filter and high-pass filter cutoffs for seven common ERP components (P3b, N400, N170, N2pc, mismatch negativity, error-related negativity, and lateralized readiness potential) recorded from a set of neurotypical young adults. We also examined four common scoring methods (mean amplitude, peak amplitude, peak latency, and 50% area latency). For each combination of component and scoring method, we quantified the effects of filtering on data quality (noise level and signal-to-noise ratio) and waveform distortion. This led to recommendations for optimal low-pass and high-pass filter cutoffs. We repeated the analyses after adding artificial noise to provide recommendations for datasets with moderately greater noise levels. For researchers who are analyzing data with similar ERP components, noise levels, and participant populations, using the recommended filter settings should lead to improved data quality and statistical power without creating problematic waveform distortion.

Indexed as

ERPnoise leveloptimal filteringscoring methodsSNRwave distortion

Identifiers

PMID37397984
PMCPMC10312706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.