Digital filter design for electrophysiological data – a practical approach

BACKGROUND Filtering is a ubiquitous step in the preprocessing of electroencephalographic (EEG) and magnetoencephalographic (MEG) data. Besides the intended effect of the attenuation of signal components considered as noise, filtering can also result in various unintended adverse filter effects (distortions such as smoothing) and filter artifacts. METHOD We give some practical guidelines for the evaluation of filter responses (impulse and frequency response) and the selection of filter types (high-pass/low-pass/band-pass/band-stop; finite/infinite impulse response, FIR/IIR) and filter parameters (cutoff frequencies, filter order and roll-off, ripple, delay and causality) to optimize signal-to-noise ratio and avoid or reduce signal distortions for selected electrophysiological applications. RESULTS Various filter implementations in common electrophysiology software packages are introduced and discussed. Resulting filter responses are compared and evaluated. CONCLUSION We present strategies for recognizing common adverse filter effects and filter artifacts and demonstrate them in practical examples. Best practices and recommendations for the selection and reporting of filter parameters, limitations, and alternatives to filtering are discussed.

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

[2]  Marina Schmid,et al.  An Introduction To The Event Related Potential Technique , 2016 .

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

[4]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Mapping Symbols to Sounds: Electrophysiological Correlates of the Impaired Reading Process in Dyslexia , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[5]  L. Rabiner,et al.  A computer program for designing optimum FIR linear phase digital filters , 1973 .

[6]  Steven J. Luck,et al.  ERPLAB: an open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[7]  Steven W. Smith,et al.  The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing , 1997 .

[8]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB, SIFT, NFT, BCILAB, and ERICA: New Tools for Advanced EEG Processing , 2011, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[9]  Mark C. W. van Rossum,et al.  Systematic biases in early ERP and ERF components as a result of high-pass filtering , 2012, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[10]  S. Luck,et al.  The effects of electrode impedance on data quality and statistical significance in ERP recordings. , 2010, Psychophysiology.

[11]  Fredrik Gustafsson,et al.  Determining the initial states in forward-backward filtering , 1996, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[12]  A. Nakamura,et al.  Localizing the distributed language network responsible for the N400 measured by MEG during auditory sentence processing , 2006, Brain Research.

[13]  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.

[14]  Partha P. Mitra,et al.  Observed Brain Dynamics , 2007 .

[15]  Todd C. Handy,et al.  Event-related potentials : a methods handbook , 2005 .

[16]  P. Heil,et al.  Detection of Near-Threshold Sounds is Independent of EEG Phase in Common Frequency Bands , 2013, Front. Psychol..

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

[18]  Marta Kutas,et al.  Interpreting event-related brain potential (ERP) distributions: Implications of baseline potentials and variability with application to amplitude normalization by vector scaling , 2006, Biological Psychology.

[19]  Emmanuel Ifeachor,et al.  Digital Signal Processing: A Practical Approach , 1993 .

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