Rational Manipulation of Digital EEG: Pearls and Pitfalls

Summary: The advent of digital EEG has provided greater flexibility and more opportunities in data analysis to optimize the diagnostic yield. Changing the filter settings, sensitivity, montages, and time-base are possible rational manipulations to achieve this goal. The options to use polygraphy, video, and quantification are additional useful features. Aliasing and loss of data are potential pitfalls in the use of digital EEG. This review illustrates some common clinical scenarios where rational manipulations can enhance the diagnostic EEG yield and potential pitfalls in the process.

[1]  B. Hjorth.  An on-line transformation of EEG scalp potentials into orthogonal source derivations. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[2]  Charles M Epstein.  Digital EEG: Trouble in Paradise? , 2006, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[3]  W. Sutherling,et al.  IFCN guidelines for topographic and frequency analysis of EEGs and EPs.The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1999, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[4]  E Stålberg,et al.  Source derivation in clinical routine EEG. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[5]  R. Cooper.  An ambiguity of bipolar recording. , 1959, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[6]  A. Hill,et al.  Simultaneous Recording of EEG and Electromyographic Polygraphy Increases the Diagnostic Yield of Video-EEG Monitoring , 2014, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[7]  P Jayakar,et al.  Localization of epileptogenic foci using a simple reference-subtraction montage to document small interchannel time differences. , 1991, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[8]  M R Nuwer,et al.  Quantitative EEG: I. Techniques and Problems of Frequency Analysis and Topographic Mapping , 1988, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[9]  Reilly El,et al.  Reversal of electrical sign in the occipital area: physiological or montage artifact. , 1980 .

[10]  Stephen A. Dyer,et al.  Digital signal processing , 2018, 8th International Multitopic Conference, 2004. Proceedings of INMIC 2004..

[11]  Guideline 8: Guidelines for Recording Clinical EEG on Digital Media , 2006, American journal of electroneurodiagnostic technology.

[12]  J Gotman,et al.  Automatic detection of spike-and-wave bursts in ambulatory EEG recordings. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[13]  E A Rodin,et al.  Some Problems in the Clinical Use of Topographic EEG Analysis , 1991, Clinical EEG.

[14]  J. Ebersole.  Defining epileptogenic foci: past, present, future. , 1997, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[15]  J Nilsson,et al.  Principles of digital sampling of a physiologic signal. , 1993, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[16]  Stefan Rampp,et al.  Seizure Onset Determination , 2009, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[17]  D E Blum,et al.  Computer-based electroencephalography: technical basics, basis for new applications, and potential pitfalls. , 1998, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[18]  Charles M. Epstein.  Aliasing in the visual EEG: a potential pitfall of video display technology , 2003, Clinical Neurophysiology.