ArticlePsychophysiology2025
Comparing Manual and Automatic Artifact Detection in Sleep EEG Recordings.
Article in Psychophysiology, 2025. 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 DYNAM-O Toolbox: Characterizing Individualized Neural Signatures in Sleep EEG.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
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
Sleep electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings can be contaminated by artifacts. Visual and automatic methods have been developed to mark such erroneous segments of EEG data. Here, we systematically explored the effect of artifacts on the sleep EEG power spectrum density (PSD), and we compared gold-standard visual detections to a simple automatic detector using Hjorth parameters to identify artifacts. We found that most distortions in the all-night average PSD occur because of a small minority of highly anomalous artifacts, which mainly affect the beta and gamma frequency ranges and NREM delta. Visual and automatic detections only showed moderate agreement in which data segments are artifactual. However, the resulting all-night average PSD is highly similar across all methods, and PSDs calculated with all methods successfully recover the known correlations of PSD with age and sex. No parameter settings of the automatic detector clearly outperformed others. Additionally, we showed that accurate average PSD estimates can be recovered from just a fraction of available data epochs. Our results suggest that artifacts represent a minor and easily solvable problem in sleep EEG recordings. Most visually identified artifacts do not seriously distort estimates of mid-frequency activity in the sleep EEG spectrum, and distortions to low and high frequencies can be eliminated using a simple automatic detection method nearly as well as with visual detections. These findings show that the visual inspection of EEG data is not necessary to eliminate the effects of artifacts, which is encouraging for the expected performance of automatic preprocessing in large sleep EEG databases.
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.