ArticleNeuroImage2025
Assessing the impact of artifact correction and artifact rejection on the performance of SVM- and LDA-based decoding of EEG signals.
Article in NeuroImage, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the effects of regularization and cross-validation parameters on the performance of SVM-based decoding of EEG data.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2026Article
- Evaluating the effects of regularization and cross-validation parameters on the performance of SVM-based decoding of EEG data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- An EEG-based digital biomarker for personalizing transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depressive disorder.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Electroencephalographic (EEG) analysis of hue perception differences between art and non-art majors: insights from the P2 and P3 components.BMC psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous studies have demonstrated that eyeblinks and other large artifacts can decrease the signal-to-noise ratio of EEG data, resulting in decreased statistical power for conventional univariate analyses. However, it is not clear whether eliminating these artifacts during preprocessing enhances the performance of multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA; decoding), especially given that artifact rejection reduces the number of trials available for training the decoder. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of artifact-minimization approaches on the decoding performance of support vector machines. Independent component analysis (ICA) was used to correct ocular artifacts, and artifact rejection was used to discard trials with large voltage deflections from other sources (e.g., muscle artifacts). We assessed decoding performance in relatively simple binary classification tasks using data from seven commonly-used event-related potential paradigms (N170, mismatch negativity, N2pc, P3b, N400, lateralized readiness potential, and error-related negativity), as well as more challenging multi-way decoding tasks, including stimulus location and stimulus orientation. The results indicated that the combination of artifact correction and rejection did not improve decoding performance in the vast majority of cases. However, artifact correction may still be essential to minimize artifact-related confounds that might artificially inflate decoding accuracy. Researchers who are using similar methods to decode EEG data from paradigms, populations, and recording setups that are similar to those examined here may benefit from our recommendations to optimize decoding performance and avoid incorrect conclusions.
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.