Methods for the quantification and statistical testing of ERP differences across conditions

Several standard methods, as well as a new method for the quantification of event-related potential (ERP) differences across conditions, are described. The standard methods are (1) peak analysis, (2) the calculation of mean values, and (3) the calculation of difference waveshapes. The new method, calledwindow analysis, was designed to quantify and statistically test in a very simple way any shape differences between two ERP curves in certain time intervals (windows) when clear peaks are lacking in one or all conditions. The window analysis is based on a conventional analysis of variance with sample time as an additional within-subjects factor. The significance of a shape difference between the curves for a factor of interest can then be determined with anF test for the interaction of this factor with the factor time. The usefulness of the window analysis is demonstrated in an example with real data.

[1]  J Hohnsbein,et al.  Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. I. Simple and choice reaction tasks. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[2]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[3]  J Hohnsbein,et al.  Performance differences in reaction tasks are reflected in event-related brain potentials (ERPs). , 1998, Ergonomics.

[4]  M. Posner,et al.  Spatiotemporal analysis of brain electrical fields , 1994 .

[5]  J. Hohnsbein,et al.  Effects of choice complexity on different subcomponents of the late positive complex of the event-related potential. , 1994, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[6]  S. Geisser,et al.  An Extension of Box's Results on the Use of the $F$ Distribution in Multivariate Analysis , 1958 .

[7]  J Möcks,et al.  The influence of latency jitter in principal component analysis of event-related potentials. , 1986, Psychophysiology.

[8]  M. Falkenstein,et al.  Late visual and auditory ERP components and choice reaction time , 1993, Biological Psychology.

[9]  J. Bortz.  Lehrbuch der Statistik , 1979 .

[10]  Paul M. Corballis,et al.  Hemispheric Organization of Visual Memories , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  Martin Eimer,et al.  The lateralized readiness potential as an on-line measure of central response activation processes , 1998 .

[12]  Michael Falkenstein,et al.  A new method for the estimation of the onset of the lateralized readiness potential (LRP) , 1998 .

[13]  W. Walter,et al.  Contingent Negative Variation : An Electric Sign of Sensori-Motor Association and Expectancy in the Human Brain , 1964, Nature.

[14]  M Rappaport,et al.  Peak identification in visual evoked potentials. , 1973, Psychophysiology.

[15]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: an ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[16]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Endogenous brain potentials associated with selective auditory attention. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[17]  G.J.M. van Boxtel,et al.  Computational and statistical methods for analyzing event-related potential data , 1998 .