Optimal Filters for ERP Research I: A General Approach for Selecting Filter Settings

Evaluating the effectiveness of artifact correction and rejection in event-related potential research

Eyeblinks and other large artifacts can create two major problems in event-related potential (ERP) research, namely confounds and increased noise. Here, we developed a method for assessing the effectiveness of artifact correction and rejection methods in minimizing these two problems. We then used this method to assess a common artifact minimization approach, in which independent component analysis (ICA) is used to correct ocular artifacts, and artifact rejection is used to reject trials with extreme values resulting from other sources (e.g., movement artifacts). This approach was applied to data from five common ERP components (P3b, N400, N170, mismatch negativity, and error-related negativity). Four common scoring methods (mean amplitude, peak amplitude, peak latency, and 50% area latency) were examined for each component. We found that eyeblinks differed systematically across experimental conditions for several of the components. We also found that artifact correction was reasonably effective at minimizing these confounds, although it did not usually eliminate them completely. In addition, we found that the rejection of trials with extreme voltage values was effective at reducing noise, with the benefits of eliminating these trials outweighing the reduced number of trials available for averaging. For researchers who are analyzing similar ERP components and participant populations, this combination of artifact correction and rejection approaches should minimize artifact-related confounds and lead to improved data quality. Researchers who are analyzing other components or participant populations can use the method developed in this study to determine which artifact minimization approaches are effective in their data.

Evaluating the effectiveness of artifact correction and rejection in event-related potential research

Eyeblinks and other large artifacts can create two major problems in event-related potential (ERP) research, namely confounds and increased noise. Here, we developed a method for assessing the effectiveness of artifact correction and rejection methods at minimizing these two problems. We then used this method to assess a common artifact minimization approach, in which independent component analysis (ICA) is used to correct ocular artifacts, and artifact rejection is used to reject trials with extreme values resulting from other sources (e.g., movement artifacts). This approach was applied to data from five common ERP components (P3b, N400, N170, mismatch negativity, and error-related negativity). Four common scoring methods (mean amplitude, peak amplitude, peak latency, and 50% area latency) were examined for each component. We found that eyeblinks differed systematically across experimental conditions for several of the components. We also found that artifact correction was reasonably effective at minimizing these confounds, although it did not usually eliminate them completely. In addition, we found that the rejection of trials with extreme voltage values was effective at reducing noise, with the benefits of eliminating these trials outweighing the reduced number of trials available for averaging. For researchers who are analyzing similar ERP components and participant populations, this combination of artifact correction and rejection approaches should minimize artifact-related confounds and lead to improved data quality. Researchers who are analyzing other components or participant populations can use the method developed in this study to determine which artifact minimization approaches are effective in their data.

Enhancing precision in human neuroscience

Human neuroscience has always been pushing the boundary of what is measurable. During the last decade, concerns about statistical power and replicability - in science in general, but also specifically in human neuroscience - have fueled an extensive debate. One important insight from this discourse is the need for larger samples, which naturally increases statistical power. An alternative is to increase the precision of measurements, which is the focus of this review. This option is often overlooked, even though statistical power benefits from increasing precision as much as from increasing sample size. Nonetheless, precision has always been at the heart of good scientific practice in human neuroscience, with researchers relying on lab traditions or rules of thumb to ensure sufficient precision for their studies. In this review, we encourage a more systematic approach to precision. We start by introducing measurement precision and its importance for well-powered studies in human neuroscience. Then, determinants for precision in a range of neuroscientific methods (MRI, M/EEG, EDA, Eye-Tracking, and Endocrinology) are elaborated. We end by discussing how a more systematic evaluation of precision and the application of respective insights can lead to an increase in reproducibility in human neuroscience.

Optimal Filters for ERP Research II: Recommended Settings for Seven Common ERP Components

In research with event-related potentials (ERPs), aggressive filters can substantially improve the signal-to-noise ratio and maximize statistical power, but they can also produce significant waveform distortion. Although this tradeoff has been well documented, the field lacks recommendations for filter cutoffs that quantitatively address both of these competing considerations. To fill this gap, we quantified the effects of a broad range of low-pass filter and high-pass filter cutoffs for seven common ERP components (P3b, N400, N170, N2pc, mismatch negativity, error-related negativity, and lateralized readiness potential) recorded from a set of neurotypical young adults. We also examined four common scoring methods (mean amplitude, peak amplitude, peak latency, and 50% area latency). For each combination of component and scoring method, we quantified the effects of filtering on data quality (noise level and signal-to-noise ratio) and waveform distortion. This led to recommendations for optimal low-pass and high-pass filter cutoffs. We repeated the analyses after adding artificial noise to provide recommendations for datasets with moderately greater noise levels. For researchers who are analyzing data with similar ERP components, noise levels, and participant populations, using the recommended filter settings should lead to improved data quality and statistical power without creating problematic waveform distortion.