最大化ERP测量中的信噪比和统计功率:单站点与多站点平均集群。

Psychophysiology Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-16 DOI:10.1111/psyp.14440
Wendy Zhang, Emily S Kappenman
{"title":"最大化ERP测量中的信噪比和统计功率:单站点与多站点平均集群。","authors":"Wendy Zhang, Emily S Kappenman","doi":"10.1111/psyp.14440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>One important decision in every event-related potential (ERP) experiment is which electrode site(s) to use in quantifying the ERP component of interest. A common approach is to measure the ERP from a single electrode site, typically the site where the ERP component is largest. Alternatively, two or more electrode sites in a given spatial region are averaged together, and the ERP is measured from the resulting multi-site cluster. The goal of the present study was to systematically compare these two measurement approaches across a range of outcome measures and ERP components to determine whether measuring from a single electrode site or an average of multiple sites yields consistently better results. We examined seven common ERP components from the open-source ERP CORE dataset that span a range of neurocognitive processes: N170, mismatch negativity (MMN), N2pc, N400, P3, lateralized readiness potential (LRP), and error-related negativity (ERN). For each component, we compared ERP amplitude, noise level, signal-to-noise ratio, and effect size at two single electrode sites and four multi-site clusters. We also used a Monte Carlo approach to simulate within-participant and between-groups experiments with known effect magnitudes to compare statistical power at single sites and multi-site clusters. Overall, measuring from a multi-site cluster produced results that were as good as or better than measuring from a single electrode site across analyses and components, indicating that the cluster-based measurement approach may be beneficial in quantifying ERPs from a range of neurocognitive domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":94182,"journal":{"name":"Psychophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Maximizing signal-to-noise ratio and statistical power in ERP measurement: Single sites versus multi-site average clusters.\",\"authors\":\"Wendy Zhang, Emily S Kappenman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/psyp.14440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>One important decision in every event-related potential (ERP) experiment is which electrode site(s) to use in quantifying the ERP component of interest. A common approach is to measure the ERP from a single electrode site, typically the site where the ERP component is largest. Alternatively, two or more electrode sites in a given spatial region are averaged together, and the ERP is measured from the resulting multi-site cluster. The goal of the present study was to systematically compare these two measurement approaches across a range of outcome measures and ERP components to determine whether measuring from a single electrode site or an average of multiple sites yields consistently better results. We examined seven common ERP components from the open-source ERP CORE dataset that span a range of neurocognitive processes: N170, mismatch negativity (MMN), N2pc, N400, P3, lateralized readiness potential (LRP), and error-related negativity (ERN). For each component, we compared ERP amplitude, noise level, signal-to-noise ratio, and effect size at two single electrode sites and four multi-site clusters. We also used a Monte Carlo approach to simulate within-participant and between-groups experiments with known effect magnitudes to compare statistical power at single sites and multi-site clusters. Overall, measuring from a multi-site cluster produced results that were as good as or better than measuring from a single electrode site across analyses and components, indicating that the cluster-based measurement approach may be beneficial in quantifying ERPs from a range of neurocognitive domains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94182,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14440\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14440","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在每个事件相关电位(ERP)实验中,一个重要的决定是使用哪个电极位点来量化感兴趣的ERP成分。一种常见的方法是从单个电极位置测量ERP,通常是ERP成分最大的位置。或者,在一个给定的空间区域的两个或更多的电极点被平均在一起,并从由此产生的多点集群的ERP测量。本研究的目的是系统地比较这两种测量方法在一系列结果测量和ERP组件上的差异,以确定从单个电极位置测量还是从多个电极位置平均测量是否会产生一致的更好结果。我们从开源ERP CORE数据集中研究了7个常见的ERP组件,它们涵盖了一系列神经认知过程:N170、错配负性(MMN)、N2pc、N400、P3、侧化准备电位(LRP)和错误相关负性(ERN)。对于每个组成部分,我们比较了两个单电极点和四个多电极点簇的ERP振幅、噪声水平、信噪比和效应大小。我们还使用蒙特卡罗方法模拟参与者内实验和组间实验,以比较单点和多点集群的统计能力。总体而言,从多位点集群测量产生的结果与跨分析和组件从单个电极位置测量的结果一样好,甚至更好,这表明基于集群的测量方法可能有利于从一系列神经认知领域量化erp。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Maximizing signal-to-noise ratio and statistical power in ERP measurement: Single sites versus multi-site average clusters.

One important decision in every event-related potential (ERP) experiment is which electrode site(s) to use in quantifying the ERP component of interest. A common approach is to measure the ERP from a single electrode site, typically the site where the ERP component is largest. Alternatively, two or more electrode sites in a given spatial region are averaged together, and the ERP is measured from the resulting multi-site cluster. The goal of the present study was to systematically compare these two measurement approaches across a range of outcome measures and ERP components to determine whether measuring from a single electrode site or an average of multiple sites yields consistently better results. We examined seven common ERP components from the open-source ERP CORE dataset that span a range of neurocognitive processes: N170, mismatch negativity (MMN), N2pc, N400, P3, lateralized readiness potential (LRP), and error-related negativity (ERN). For each component, we compared ERP amplitude, noise level, signal-to-noise ratio, and effect size at two single electrode sites and four multi-site clusters. We also used a Monte Carlo approach to simulate within-participant and between-groups experiments with known effect magnitudes to compare statistical power at single sites and multi-site clusters. Overall, measuring from a multi-site cluster produced results that were as good as or better than measuring from a single electrode site across analyses and components, indicating that the cluster-based measurement approach may be beneficial in quantifying ERPs from a range of neurocognitive domains.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
How effort-based self-interest motivation shapes altruistic donation behavior and brain responses. Beyond peaks and troughs: Multiplexed performance monitoring signals in the EEG. Reduced reward responsiveness and depression vulnerability: Consideration of social contexts and implications for intervention. Moving toward reality: Electrocortical reactivity to naturalistic multimodal emotional videos. Mapping the routes of perception: Hemispheric asymmetries in signal propagation dynamics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1