4.6 Article

Establishing correlations of scalp field maps with other experimental variables using covariance analysis and resampling methods

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 119, Issue 6, Pages 1262-1270

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.12.023

Keywords

ERP; topography; correlation; statistics; randomization; inverse solution

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: In EEG/MEG experiments, increasing the number of sensors improves the spatial resolution of the results. However, the standard statistical methods are inappropriate for these multivariate, highly correlated datasets. We introduce a procedure to identify spatially extended scalp fields that correlate with some external, continuous measure (reaction-time, performance, clinical status) and to test their significance. Methods: We formally deduce that the channel-wise covariance of some experimental variable with scalp field data directly represents intracerebral sources associated with that variable. We furthermore show how the significance of such a representation can be tested with resampling techniques. Results: Simulations showed that depending on the number of channels and subjects, effects can be detected already at low signal to noise ratios. In a sample analysis of real data, we found that foreign-language evoked ERP data were significantly associated with foreign-language proficiency. Inverse solutions of the extracted covariances pointed to sources in language-related areas. Conclusions: Covariance mapping combined with bootstrapping methods has high statistical power and yields unique and directly interpretable results. Significance: The introduced methodology overcomes some of the 'traditional' statistical problems in EEG/MEG scalp data analysis. Its application can improve the reproducibility of results in the field of EEG/MEG. (c) 2008 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available