No need for extensive artifact rejection for ICA - A multi-study evaluation on stationary and mobile EEG datasets

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Objective Electroencephalography (EEG) studies increasingly make use of more ecologically valid experimental protocols involving mobile participants who actively engage with their environment (MoBI; Gramann et al., 2011). These mobile paradigms lead to increased artifacts in the recorded data that are often treated using Independent Component Analysis (ICA). When analyzing EEG data, especially in a mobile context, removing samples regarded as artifactual is a common approach before computing ICA. Automatic tools for this exist, such as the automatic sample rejection of the AMICA algorithm (Palmer et al., 2011), but the impact of the two factors movement intensity and the automatic sample rejection has not been systematically evaluated yet. Approach We computed AMICA decompositions on eight datasets from six open-access studies with varying degrees of movement intensities using increasingly conservative sample rejection criteria. We evaluated the subsequent decomposition quality in terms of the component mutual information, the amount of brain, muscle, and “other” components, the residual variance of the brain components, and an exemplary signal-to-noise ratio. Main results We found that increasing movements of participants led to decreasing decomposition quality for individual datasets but not as a general trend across all movement intensities. The cleaning strength had less impact on decomposition results than anticipated, and moderate cleaning of the data resulted in the best decompositions. Significance Our results indicate that the AMICA algorithm is very robust even with limited data cleaning. Moderate amounts of cleaning such as 5 to 10 iterations of the AMICA sample rejection with 3 standard deviations as the threshold will likely improve the decomposition of most datasets, irrespective of the movement intensity.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.