Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39961498›Full record

ReviewNeuroImage2025

EEG microstate syntax analysis: A review of methodological challenges and advances.

David Haydock, Shabnam Kadir, Robert Leech, Chrystopher L Nehaniv, Elena Antonova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NeuroImage, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

David HaydockBiocomputation Research Group, School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK; Birkbeck-UCL Centre for Neuroimaging, Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, UK. Electronic address: d.haydock@ucl.ac.uk.
Shabnam KadirBiocomputation Research Group, School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Robert LeechCentre for Neuroimaging Science, King's College London, London, UK.
Chrystopher L NehanivBiocomputation Research Group, School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK; Centre for Theoretical Neuroscience, Departments of Systems Design Engineering and of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Elena AntonovaDivision of Psychology, Department of Life Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Centre for Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, Brunel University of London, Uxbridge, UK.

Funding

Dimension-based auditory selective attentionR01DC017734 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI HOLT, LORI L · 2020 to 2024
$2.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC017734
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electroencephalography (EEG) microstates are "quasi-stable" periods of electrical potential distribution in multichannel EEG derived from peaks in Global Field Power. Transitions between microstates form a temporal sequence that may reflect underlying neural dynamics. Mounting evidence indicates that EEG microstate sequences have long-range, non-Markovian dependencies, suggesting a complex underlying process that drives EEG microstate syntax (i.e., the transitional dynamics between microstates). Despite growing interest in EEG microstate syntax, the field remains fragmented, with inconsistent terminologies used between studies and a lack of defined methodological categories. To advance the understanding of functional significance of microstates and to facilitate methodological comparability and finding replicability across studies, we: i) derive categories of syntax analysis methods, reviewing how each may be utilised most readily; ii) define three "time-modes" for EEG microstate sequence construction; and iii) outline general issues concerning current microstate syntax analysis methods, suggesting that the microstate models derived using these methods are cross-referenced against models of continuous EEG. We advocate for these continuous approaches as they do not assume a winner-takes-all model inherent in the microstate derivation methods and contextualise the relationship between microstate models and EEG data. They may also allow for the development of more robust associative models between microstates and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging data.

Indexed as

BrainElectroencephalographySignal Processing, Computer-AssistedHumansBiomarkersCognitionElectroencephalographyNeuroimagingResting-state EEG

Identifiers

PMID39961498
PMCPMC12043272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.