↓ Skip to main content

Separation and reconstruction of BCG and EEG signals during continuous EEG and fMRI recordings

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
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
Separation and reconstruction of BCG and EEG signals during continuous EEG and fMRI recordings
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00163
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongjing Xia, Dan Ruan, Mark S. Cohen

Abstract

Despite considerable effort to remove it, the ballistocardiogram (BCG) remains a major artifact in electroencephalographic data (EEG) acquired inside magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, particularly in continuous (as opposed to event-related) recordings. In this study, we have developed a new Direct Recording Prior Encoding (DRPE) method to extract and separate the BCG and EEG components from contaminated signals, and have demonstrated its performance by comparing it quantitatively to the popular Optimal Basis Set (OBS) method. Our modified recording configuration allows us to obtain representative bases of the BCG- and EEG-only signals. Further, we have developed an optimization-based reconstruction approach to maximally incorporate prior knowledge of the BCG/EEG subspaces, and of the signal characteristics within them. Both OBS and DRPE methods were tested with experimental data, and compared quantitatively using cross-validation. In the challenging continuous EEG studies, DRPE outperforms the OBS method by nearly sevenfold in separating the continuous BCG and EEG signals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Researcher 7 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 21%
Engineering 8 21%
Psychology 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Physics and Astronomy 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 7 18%
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 23 June 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#9,457
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,700
of 243,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#100
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 243,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.