↓ Skip to main content

Clustering-Constrained ICA for Ballistocardiogram Artifacts Removal in Simultaneous EEG-fMRI

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Clustering-Constrained ICA for Ballistocardiogram Artifacts Removal in Simultaneous EEG-fMRI
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00059
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kai Wang, Wenjie Li, Li Dong, Ling Zou, Changming Wang

Abstract

Combination of electroencephalogram (EEG) recording and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) plays a potential role in neuroimaging due to its high spatial and temporal resolution. However, EEG is easily influenced by ballistocardiogram (BCG) artifacts and may cause false identification of the related EEG features, such as epileptic spikes. There are many related methods to remove them, however, they do not consider the time-varying features of BCG artifacts. In this paper, a novel method using clustering algorithm to catch the BCG artifacts' features and together with the constrained ICA (ccICA) is proposed to remove the BCG artifacts. We first applied this method to the simulated data, which was constructed by adding the BCG artifacts to the EEG signal obtained from the conventional environment. Then, our method was tested to demonstrate the effectiveness during EEG and fMRI experiments on 10 healthy subjects. In simulated data analysis, the value of error in signal amplitude (Er) computed by ccICA method was lower than those from other methods including AAS, OBS, and cICA (p< 0.005).In vivodata analysis, the Improvement of Normalized Power Spectrum (INPS) calculated by ccICA method in all electrodes was much higher than AAS, OBS, and cICA methods (p< 0.005). We also used other evaluation index (e.g., power analysis) to compare our method with other traditional methods. In conclusion, our novel method successfully and effectively removed BCG artifacts in both simulated andvivoEEG data tests, showing the potentials of removing artifacts in EEG-fMRI applications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 26%
Student > Master 7 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Professor 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 35%
Engineering 5 16%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 32%
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 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,671
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,024
of 455,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#187
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 11.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 455,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.