Group-level component analyses of EEG: validation and evaluation

Multi-subject or group-level component analysis provides a data-driven approach to study properties of brain networks. Algorithms for group-level data decomposition of functional magnetic resonance imaging data have been brought forward more than a decade ago and have significantly matured since. Similar applications for electroencephalographic data are at a comparatively early stage of development though, and their sensitivity to topographic variability of the electroencephalogram or loose time-locking of neuronal responses has not yet been assessed. This study investigates the performance of independent component analysis (ICA) and second order blind source identification (SOBI) for data decomposition, and their combination with either temporal or spatial concatenation of data sets, for multi-subject analyses of electroencephalographic data. Analyses of simulated sources with different spatial, frequency, and time-locking profiles, revealed that temporal concatenation of data sets with either ICA or SOBI served well to reconstruct sources with both strict and loose time-locking, whereas performance decreased in the presence of topographical variability. The opposite pattern was found with a spatial concatenation of subject-specific data sets. This study proofs that procedures for group-level decomposition of electroencephalographic data can be considered valid and promising approaches to infer the latent structure of multi-subject data sets. Yet, specific implementations need further adaptations to optimally address sources of inter-subject and inter-trial variance commonly found in EEG recordings.

[1]  J. Fermaglich.  Electric Fields of the Brain: The Neurophysics of EEG , 1982 .

[2]  P. Leese.  Comparison of the effects , 1992 .

[3]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  An Information-Maximization Approach to Blind Separation and Blind Deconvolution , 1995, Neural Computation.

[4]  Eric Moulines,et al.  A blind source separation technique using second-order statistics , 1997, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[5]  D. Tucker,et al.  EEG coherency. I: Statistics, reference electrode, volume conduction, Laplacians, cortical imaging, and interpretation at multiple scales. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[6]  Erkki Oja,et al.  Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications , 2000, Neural Networks.

[7]  Francesco Camastra,et al.  Data dimensionality estimation methods: a survey , 2003, Pattern Recognit..

[8]  M. Murray,et al.  EEG source imaging , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[9]  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.

[10]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  Electroencephalographic Brain Dynamics Following Manually Responded Visual Targets , 2004, PLoS biology.

[11]  S. Makeig,et al.  Imaging human EEG dynamics using independent component analysis , 2006, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[12]  P. Nunez,et al.  Comparison of the effect of volume conduction on EEG coherence with the effect of field spread on MEG coherence , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  Bart Vanrumste,et al.  Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation Open Access Review on Solving the Inverse Problem in Eeg Source Analysis , 2022 .

[14]  Sven Hoffmann,et al.  The Correction of Eye Blink Artefacts in the EEG: A Comparison of Two Prominent Methods , 2008, PloS one.

[15]  Vince D. Calhoun,et al.  EEGIFT: Group Independent Component Analysis for Event-Related EEG Data , 2011, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[16]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  Introduction to machine learning for brain imaging , 2011, NeuroImage.

[17]  R. Oostenveld,et al.  Independent EEG Sources Are Dipolar , 2012, PloS one.

[18]  V. Calhoun,et al.  Multisubject Independent Component Analysis of fMRI: A Decade of Intrinsic Networks, Default Mode, and Neurodiagnostic Discovery , 2012, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

[19]  C. Koch,et al.  The origin of extracellular fields and currents — EEG, ECoG, LFP and spikes , 2012, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[20]  A. Cichocki,et al.  alidating rationale of group-level component analysis based on estimating umber of sources in EEG through model order selection , 2012 .

[21]  P. Boulinguez,et al.  Greater robustness of second order statistics than higher order statistics algorithms to distortions of the mixing matrix in blind source separation of human EEG: Implications for single-subject and group analyses , 2013, NeuroImage.

[22]  Kenneth Kreutz-Delgado,et al.  Measure projection analysis: A probabilistic approach to EEG source comparison and multi-subject inference , 2013, NeuroImage.

[23]  Waqas Majeed,et al.  Robust Data Driven Model Order Estimation for Independent Component Analysis of fMRI Data with Low Contrast to Noise , 2014, PloS one.

[24]  René J. Huster,et al.  Modulation of frontal-midline theta by neurofeedback , 2014, Biological Psychology.

[25]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  Provable ICA with Unknown Gaussian Noise, and Implications for Gaussian Mixtures and Autoencoders , 2012, Algorithmica.