How Sensitive are EEG Results to Preprocessing Methods: A Benchmarking Study

EEG preprocessing approaches have not been standardized, and even those studies that follow best practices contain variations in the ways that the recommended methods are applied. An open question for researchers is how sensitive the results of EEG analyses are to preprocessing methods and parameters. To address this issue, we analyze the effect of preprocessing methods on downstream EEG analysis using several simple signal and event-related measures. Signal measures include recording-level channel amplitudes, study-level channel amplitude dispersion, and recording spectral characteristics. Event-related methods include ERPs and ERSPs and their correlations across methods for a diverse set of stimulus events. Our analysis also assesses differences in residual signals both in the time and spectral domains after blink artifacts have been removed. Using fully automated pipelines, we evaluate these measures across 17 EEG studies for two ICA-based preprocessing approaches (LARG, MARA) plus two variations of Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR). Although the general structure of the results is similar across these preprocessing methods, there are significant differences, particularly in the low-frequency spectral features and in the residuals left by blinks. These results argue for detailed reporting of processing details and for using a federation of processing pipelines to quantify effects of processing choices.

[1]  Kenneth Kreutz-Delgado,et al.  EyeCatch: Data-mining over half a million EEG independent components to construct a fully-automated eye-component detector , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[2]  Cornelia Kranczioch,et al.  Individual differences in dual-target RSVP task performance relate to entrainment but not to individual alpha frequency , 2017, PloS one.

[3]  Tzyy-Ping Jung,et al.  Real-time neuroimaging and cognitive monitoring using wearable dry EEG , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  Nima Bigdely Shamlo,et al.  Automated EEG mega-analysis II: Cognitive aspects of event related features , 2020, NeuroImage.

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

[6]  Jose L. Contreras-Vidal,et al.  Deployment of Mobile EEG Technology in an Art Museum Setting: Evaluation of Signal Quality and Usability , 2017, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[7]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Best practices in data analysis and sharing in neuroimaging using MRI , 2017, Nature Neuroscience.

[8]  Mariano Sigman,et al.  CUDAICA: GPU Optimization of Infomax-ICA EEG Analysis , 2012, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[9]  G L Shulman,et al.  INAUGURAL ARTICLE by a Recently Elected Academy Member:A default mode of brain function , 2001 .

[10]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Committee report: publication guidelines and recommendations for studies using electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography. , 2014, Psychophysiology.

[11]  Stephanie Brandl,et al.  Robust artifactual independent component classification for BCI practitioners , 2014, Journal of neural engineering.

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

[13]  Nima Bigdely Shamlo,et al.  Automated EEG mega-analysis I: Spectral and amplitude characteristics across studies , 2020, NeuroImage.

[14]  Bertrand Rivet,et al.  Regularization and a general linear model for event-related potential estimation , 2017, Behavior Research Methods.

[15]  Kay A. Robbins,et al.  Hierarchical Event Descriptors (HED): Semi-Structured Tagging for Real-World Events in Large-Scale EEG , 2016, Front. Neuroinform..

[16]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Convolution models for induced electromagnetic responses , 2013, NeuroImage.

[17]  Jarrad A. G. Lum,et al.  Acquiring research-grade ERPs on a shoestring budget: A comparison of a modified Emotiv and commercial SynAmps EEG system. , 2017, Psychophysiology.

[18]  Scott E. Kerick,et al.  BLINKER: Automated Extraction of Ocular Indices from EEG Enabling Large-Scale Analysis , 2017, Frontiers in neuroscience.

[19]  M. Tangermann,et al.  Automatic Classification of Artifactual ICA-Components for Artifact Removal in EEG Signals , 2011, Behavioral and Brain Functions.

[20]  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.

[21]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Digital filter design for electrophysiological data – a practical approach , 2015, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

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

[23]  Joachim Gross,et al.  Good practice for conducting and reporting MEG research , 2013, NeuroImage.

[24]  S. Debener,et al.  A Riemannian Modification of Artifact Subspace Reconstruction for EEG Artifact Handling , 2019, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[25]  Benedikt V Ehinger,et al.  Unfold: an integrated toolbox for overlap correction, non-linear modeling, and regression-based EEG analysis , 2019, PeerJ.