↓ Skip to main content

Combining EEG and eye tracking: identification, characterization, and correction of eye movement artifacts in electroencephalographic data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
281 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
602 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Combining EEG and eye tracking: identification, characterization, and correction of eye movement artifacts in electroencephalographic data
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00278
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Plöchl, José P. Ossandón, Peter König

Abstract

Eye movements introduce large artifacts to electroencephalographic recordings (EEG) and thus render data analysis difficult or even impossible. Trials contaminated by eye movement and blink artifacts have to be discarded, hence in standard EEG-paradigms subjects are required to fixate on the screen. To overcome this restriction, several correction methods including regression and blind source separation have been proposed. Yet, there is no automated standard procedure established. By simultaneously recording eye movements and 64-channel-EEG during a guided eye movement paradigm, we investigate and review the properties of eye movement artifacts, including corneo-retinal dipole changes, saccadic spike potentials and eyelid artifacts, and study their interrelations during different types of eye- and eyelid movements. In concordance with earlier studies our results confirm that these artifacts arise from different independent sources and that depending on electrode site, gaze direction, and choice of reference these sources contribute differently to the measured signal. We assess the respective implications for artifact correction methods and therefore compare the performance of two prominent approaches, namely linear regression and independent component analysis (ICA). We show and discuss that due to the independence of eye artifact sources, regression-based correction methods inevitably over- or under-correct individual artifact components, while ICA is in principle suited to address such mixtures of different types of artifacts. Finally, we propose an algorithm, which uses eye tracker information to objectively identify eye-artifact related ICA-components (ICs) in an automated manner. In the data presented here, the algorithm performed very similar to human experts when those were given both, the topographies of the ICs and their respective activations in a large amount of trials. Moreover it performed more reliable and almost twice as effective than human experts when those had to base their decision on IC topographies only. Furthermore, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated an optimal balance of false positive and false negative at an area under curve (AUC) of more than 0.99. Removing the automatically detected ICs from the data resulted in removal or substantial suppression of ocular artifacts including microsaccadic spike potentials, while the relevant neural signal remained unaffected. In conclusion the present work aims at a better understanding of individual eye movement artifacts, their interrelations and the respective implications for eye artifact correction. Additionally, the proposed ICA-procedure provides a tool for optimized detection and correction of eye movement-related artifact components.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 602 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 7 1%
United States 4 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 576 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 145 24%
Student > Master 104 17%
Researcher 86 14%
Student > Bachelor 60 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 5%
Other 86 14%
Unknown 90 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 155 26%
Engineering 75 12%
Neuroscience 66 11%
Computer Science 54 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 6%
Other 95 16%
Unknown 119 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2023.
All research outputs
#16,999,530
of 24,988,543 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,530
of 7,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,489
of 255,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#225
of 292 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,988,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 292 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.