Successful reproduction of a large EEG study across software packages

As an active field of research and with the development of state-of-the-art algorithms to analyze EEG datasets, the parametrization of Electroencephalography (EEG) analysis workflows has become increasingly flexible and complex, with a great variety of methodological options and tools to be selected at each step. This high analytical flexibility can be problematic as it can yield to variability in research outcomes. Therefore, growing attention has been recently paid to understand the potential impact of different methodological decisions on the reproducibility of results. In this paper, we aim to examine how sensitive the results of EEG analyses are to variations in preprocessing with different software tools. We reanalyzed the shared EEG data (N=500) from (Williams et al. 2021) using three of the most commonly used EEG software tools: EEGLAB, Brainstorm and FieldTrip. After reproducing the same original preprocessing workflow in each software, the resulting evoked-related potentials (ERPs) were qualitatively and quantitatively compared in order to examine the degree of consistency/discrepancy between softwares. Our findings show a good degree of convergence in terms of the general profile of ERP waveforms, peak latencies and effect size estimates related to specific signal features. However, considerable variability was also observed in the magnitude of the absolute voltage observed with each software package as reflected by the similarity values and observed statistical differences at particular channels and time instants. In conclusion, we believe that this study provides valuable clues to better understand the impact of the software tool on the analysis of EEG results.

[1]  E. Kappenman,et al.  Garden of forking paths in ERP research - Effects of varying pre-processing and analysis steps in an N400 experiment. , 2024, Psychophysiology.

[2]  J. Vogelstein,et al.  Moving Beyond Processing and Analysis-Related Variation in Neuroscience , 2021, bioRxiv.

[3]  Bikash Chandra Sahana,et al.  Ocular artifact elimination from electroencephalography signals: A systematic review , 2021, Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  Marianna Semprini,et al.  Yet another artefact rejection study: an exploration of cleaning methods for biological and neuromodulatory noise , 2021, Journal of neural engineering.

[5]  Andrew X. Stewart,et al.  Standardized measurement error: A universal metric of data quality for averaged event-related potentials. , 2021, Psychophysiology.

[6]  Scott A. Baldwin,et al.  The data-processing multiverse of event-related potentials (ERPs): A roadmap for the optimization and standardization of ERP processing and reduction pipelines , 2021, NeuroImage.

[7]  Jan R. Wessel,et al.  #EEGManyLabs: Investigating the replicability of influential EEG experiments , 2020, Cortex.

[8]  Chad C. Williams,et al.  The ERP, frequency, and time-frequency correlates of feedback processing: Insights from a large sample study. , 2020, Psychophysiology.

[9]  Fabrice Wendling,et al.  Mean-Field Modeling of Brain-Scale Dynamics for the Evaluation of EEG Source-Space Networks , 2020, Brain Topography.

[10]  Michèle B. Nuijten,et al.  Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science. , 2020, Annual review of psychology.

[11]  Kay A. Robbins,et al.  How Sensitive are EEG Results to Preprocessing Methods: A Benchmarking Study , 2020, bioRxiv.

[12]  E. Kappenman,et al.  How to do Better N400 Studies: Reproducibility, Consistency and Adherence to Research Standards in the Existing Literature , 2020, Neuropsychology Review.

[13]  Christopher D. Chambers,et al.  Research Culture and Reproducibility , 2019, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  Bradley C. Love,et al.  Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams , 2019, Nature.

[15]  Laura Astolfi,et al.  Quantifying the Effect of Demixing Approaches on Directed Connectivity Estimated Between Reconstructed EEG Sources , 2019, Brain Topography.

[16]  Fabrice Wendling,et al.  COALIA: A Computational Model of Human EEG for Consciousness Research , 2019, bioRxiv.

[17]  Gui-Bin Bian,et al.  Removal of Artifacts from EEG Signals: A Review , 2019, Sensors.

[18]  John P. A. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2019, CHANCE.

[19]  Fiona Fidler,et al.  Reproducibility of Scientific Results , 2018 .

[20]  Nicolas Langer,et al.  Automagic: Standardized preprocessing of big EEG data , 2018, NeuroImage.

[21]  April R. Levin,et al.  BEAPP: The Batch Electroencephalography Automated Processing Platform , 2018, Front. Neurosci..

[22]  Megan A. Boudewyn,et al.  How many trials does it take to get a significant ERP effect? It depends. , 2018, Psychophysiology.

[23]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Exploring the impact of analysis software on task fMRI results , 2018, bioRxiv.

[24]  April R. Levin,et al.  The Harvard Automated Processing Pipeline for Electroencephalography (HAPPE): Standardized Processing Software for Developmental and High-Artifact Data , 2018, Front. Neurosci..

[25]  Amir Rastegarnia,et al.  Methods for artifact detection and removal from scalp EEG: A review , 2016, Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology.

[26]  A. Ewald,et al.  A Simulation Framework for Benchmarking EEG-Based Brain Connectivity Estimation Methodologies , 2016, Brain Topography.

[27]  D. Tucker,et al.  EEG source localization: Sensor density and head surface coverage , 2015, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[28]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Promoting an open research culture , 2015, Science.

[29]  Kyungmin Su,et al.  The PREP pipeline: standardized preprocessing for large-scale EEG analysis , 2015, Front. Neuroinform..

[30]  Tristan Glatard,et al.  Reproducibility of neuroimaging analyses across operating systems , 2015, Front. Neuroinform..

[31]  Begoña Garcia-Zapirain,et al.  EEG artifact removal—state-of-the-art and guidelines , 2015, Journal of neural engineering.

[32]  Greg H. Proudfit The reward positivity: from basic research on reward to a biomarker for depression. , 2015, Psychophysiology.

[33]  B. He,et al.  Effect of EEG electrode number on epileptic source localization in pediatric patients , 2015, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[34]  Mahmoud Hassan,et al.  EEG Source Connectivity Analysis: From Dense Array Recordings to Brain Networks , 2014, PloS one.

[35]  Martin Luessi,et al.  MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data , 2014, NeuroImage.

[36]  Martin Luessi,et al.  MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python , 2013, Front. Neuroinform..

[37]  F. D. Silva,et al.  EEG and MEG: Relevance to Neuroscience , 2013, Neuron.

[38]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience , 2013, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[39]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Filter Effects and Filter Artifacts in the Analysis of Electrophysiological Data , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[40]  Ron Mengelers,et al.  The Effects of FreeSurfer Version, Workstation Type, and Macintosh Operating System Version on Anatomical Volume and Cortical Thickness Measurements , 2012, PloS one.

[41]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Does Filtering Preclude Us from Studying ERP Time-Courses? , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[42]  Rufin VanRullen,et al.  Four Common Conceptual Fallacies in Mapping the Time Course of Recognition , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[43]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  Brainstorm: A User-Friendly Application for MEG/EEG Analysis , 2011, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[44]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data , 2010, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[45]  R. Oostenveld,et al.  Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[46]  T. Mogensen,et al.  [How to do it better?]. , 2006, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[47]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[48]  Christoph M. Michel,et al.  Epileptic source localization with high density EEG: how many electrodes are needed? , 2003, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[49]  Michael L. Waskom,et al.  Seaborn: Statistical Data Visualization , 2021, J. Open Source Softw..

[50]  Thomas D. Sambrook,et al.  A neural reward prediction error revealed by a meta-analysis of ERPs using great grand averages. , 2015, Psychological bulletin.

[51]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[52]  M. Luessi,et al.  MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data , 2013 .

[53]  R. Barry,et al.  EOG correction: a comparison of four methods. , 2005, Psychophysiology.