↓ Skip to main content

The Effect of Electroencephalogram (EEG) Reference Choice on Information-Theoretic Measures of the Complexity and Integration of EEG Signals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
The Effect of Electroencephalogram (EEG) Reference Choice on Information-Theoretic Measures of the Complexity and Integration of EEG Signals
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00425
Pubmed ID
Authors

Logan T. Trujillo, Candice T. Stanfield, Ruben D. Vela

Abstract

Converging evidence suggests that human cognition and behavior emerge from functional brain networks interacting on local and global scales. We investigated two information-theoretic measures of functional brain segregation and integration-interaction complexity C I (X), and integration I(X)-as applied to electroencephalographic (EEG) signals and how these measures are affected by choice of EEG reference. CI(X) is a statistical measure of the system entropy accounted for by interactions among its elements, whereas I(X) indexes the overall deviation from statistical independence of the individual elements of a system. We recorded 72 channels of scalp EEG from human participants who sat in a wakeful resting state (interleaved counterbalanced eyes-open and eyes-closed blocks). CI(X) and I(X) of the EEG signals were computed using four different EEG references: linked-mastoids (LM) reference, average (AVG) reference, a Laplacian (LAP) "reference-free" transformation, and an infinity (INF) reference estimated via the Reference Electrode Standardization Technique (REST). Fourier-based power spectral density (PSD), a standard measure of resting state activity, was computed for comparison and as a check of data integrity and quality. We also performed dipole source modeling in order to assess the accuracy of neural source CI(X) and I(X) estimates obtained from scalp-level EEG signals. CI(X) was largest for the LAP transformation, smallest for the LM reference, and at intermediate values for the AVG and INF references. I(X) was smallest for the LAP transformation, largest for the LM reference, and at intermediate values for the AVG and INF references. Furthermore, across all references, CI(X) and I(X) reliably distinguished between resting-state conditions (larger values for eyes-open vs. eyes-closed). These findings occurred in the context of the overall expected pattern of resting state PSD. Dipole modeling showed that simulated scalp EEG-level CI(X) and I(X) reflected changes in underlying neural source dependencies, but only for higher levels of integration and with highest accuracy for the LAP transformation. Our observations suggest that the Laplacian-transformation should be preferred for the computation of scalp-level CI(X) and I(X) due to its positive impact on EEG signal quality and statistics, reduction of volume-conduction, and the higher accuracy this provides when estimating scalp-level EEG complexity and integration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 20%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 17 23%
Neuroscience 13 18%
Psychology 8 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,128,928
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#3,410
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,495
of 327,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#32
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
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 327,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.