ERP = EEG - noise?
As I understand it, ERPs can be reliably identified only after the noise (inherent to EEG signals, regardless of the task used to evoke the response) has been largely removed, which is done by averaging across multiple repetitions. The ERP in that case is a recognisable-enough pattern in the EEG signal that it can be reliably pointed out in a graph of the averaged trials, for several electrodes, for instance:
My question: if the averaging method is trustworthy enough - assuming enough-many reptitions - to make noise components cancel each other out while leaving reliable effects still in, then why are other non-zero sections of (ripples in) the EEG signal also not defined as ERPs, with some attached meaning (e.g. response to some cognitive task), since they have, after all, survived the same denoising procedure?
It would make sense to trust the EEG signal to really not reflect any effect when the intercept (y) is zero. However, in most EEG plots this seems to (very conveniently!) only happen at the t=0 point. The signal then becomes non-zero but only part of is acknowledged as an ERP, whereas the rest seems to be considered noise even though the plotted signal has been denoised.
eeg
asked Dec 10 at 14:44
z8080
4802412
add a comment |
As I understand it, ERPs can be reliably identified only after the noise (inherent to EEG signals, regardless of the task used to evoke the response) has been largely removed, which is done by averaging across multiple repetitions. The ERP in that case is a recognisable-enough pattern in the EEG signal that it can be reliably pointed out in a graph of the averaged trials, for several electrodes, for instance:
My question: if the averaging method is trustworthy enough - assuming enough-many reptitions - to make noise components cancel each other out while leaving reliable effects still in, then why are other non-zero sections of (ripples in) the EEG signal also not defined as ERPs, with some attached meaning (e.g. response to some cognitive task), since they have, after all, survived the same denoising procedure?
It would make sense to trust the EEG signal to really not reflect any effect when the intercept (y) is zero. However, in most EEG plots this seems to (very conveniently!) only happen at the t=0 point. The signal then becomes non-zero but only part of is acknowledged as an ERP, whereas the rest seems to be considered noise even though the plotted signal has been denoised.
eeg
asked Dec 10 at 14:44
z8080
4802412
add a comment |
As I understand it, ERPs can be reliably identified only after the noise (inherent to EEG signals, regardless of the task used to evoke the response) has been largely removed, which is done by averaging across multiple repetitions. The ERP in that case is a recognisable-enough pattern in the EEG signal that it can be reliably pointed out in a graph of the averaged trials, for several electrodes, for instance:
My question: if the averaging method is trustworthy enough - assuming enough-many reptitions - to make noise components cancel each other out while leaving reliable effects still in, then why are other non-zero sections of (ripples in) the EEG signal also not defined as ERPs, with some attached meaning (e.g. response to some cognitive task), since they have, after all, survived the same denoising procedure?
It would make sense to trust the EEG signal to really not reflect any effect when the intercept (y) is zero. However, in most EEG plots this seems to (very conveniently!) only happen at the t=0 point. The signal then becomes non-zero but only part of is acknowledged as an ERP, whereas the rest seems to be considered noise even though the plotted signal has been denoised.
eeg
asked Dec 10 at 14:44
z8080
4802412
As I understand it, ERPs can be reliably identified only after the noise (inherent to EEG signals, regardless of the task used to evoke the response) has been largely removed, which is done by averaging across multiple repetitions. The ERP in that case is a recognisable-enough pattern in the EEG signal that it can be reliably pointed out in a graph of the averaged trials, for several electrodes, for instance:
My question: if the averaging method is trustworthy enough - assuming enough-many reptitions - to make noise components cancel each other out while leaving reliable effects still in, then why are other non-zero sections of (ripples in) the EEG signal also not defined as ERPs, with some attached meaning (e.g. response to some cognitive task), since they have, after all, survived the same denoising procedure?
It would make sense to trust the EEG signal to really not reflect any effect when the intercept (y) is zero. However, in most EEG plots this seems to (very conveniently!) only happen at the t=0 point. The signal then becomes non-zero but only part of is acknowledged as an ERP, whereas the rest seems to be considered noise even though the plotted signal has been denoised.
eeg
eeg
asked Dec 10 at 14:44
z8080
4802412
asked Dec 10 at 14:44
z8080
4802412
edited Dec 10 at 15:39
asked Dec 10 at 14:44
z8080
4802412
asked Dec 10 at 14:44
z8080
4802412
asked Dec 10 at 14:44
z8080
4802412
4802412
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Averaging does not perfectly remove the noise. Assuming the signal is perfectly correlated across repetitions/sweeps/trials and the noise is independent, than doing from 1 to 2 sweeps will increase the SNR by 3 dB (i.e., decrease the noise by 1/2), Every doubling in the number of sweeps increases the SNR by 3 dB so that after 1024 sweeps the SNR has improved by at most 30 dB. This means that after averaging there is a minimum magnitude required for a peak/notch to be considered statistically reliable. Any ripples with smaller magnitudes are ignored since they are not statistically reliable.
answered Dec 10 at 15:45
StrongBad
1,890623
This sounds to me (maybe I'm wrong) like a conflation of statistical significance and effect size. If there is also a cut-off in terms of amplitude, then why isn't it explicitly stated in papers (or is it?)
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:12
1
@z8080 the first paper finds a peak/notch an assesses whether they are reliable or not. Then future papers ask if changes in the peak/notch are reliable or not. These future papers are not looking to see if there are new features in the waveform.
– StrongBad
Dec 10 at 16:20
I see - I think that explains the apparent paradox I was asking about. Thanks!
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:36
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "391"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpsychology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f21283%2ferp-eeg-noise%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Averaging does not perfectly remove the noise. Assuming the signal is perfectly correlated across repetitions/sweeps/trials and the noise is independent, than doing from 1 to 2 sweeps will increase the SNR by 3 dB (i.e., decrease the noise by 1/2), Every doubling in the number of sweeps increases the SNR by 3 dB so that after 1024 sweeps the SNR has improved by at most 30 dB. This means that after averaging there is a minimum magnitude required for a peak/notch to be considered statistically reliable. Any ripples with smaller magnitudes are ignored since they are not statistically reliable.
answered Dec 10 at 15:45
StrongBad
1,890623
This sounds to me (maybe I'm wrong) like a conflation of statistical significance and effect size. If there is also a cut-off in terms of amplitude, then why isn't it explicitly stated in papers (or is it?)
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:12
1
@z8080 the first paper finds a peak/notch an assesses whether they are reliable or not. Then future papers ask if changes in the peak/notch are reliable or not. These future papers are not looking to see if there are new features in the waveform.
– StrongBad
Dec 10 at 16:20
I see - I think that explains the apparent paradox I was asking about. Thanks!
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:36
add a comment |
Averaging does not perfectly remove the noise. Assuming the signal is perfectly correlated across repetitions/sweeps/trials and the noise is independent, than doing from 1 to 2 sweeps will increase the SNR by 3 dB (i.e., decrease the noise by 1/2), Every doubling in the number of sweeps increases the SNR by 3 dB so that after 1024 sweeps the SNR has improved by at most 30 dB. This means that after averaging there is a minimum magnitude required for a peak/notch to be considered statistically reliable. Any ripples with smaller magnitudes are ignored since they are not statistically reliable.
answered Dec 10 at 15:45
StrongBad
1,890623
This sounds to me (maybe I'm wrong) like a conflation of statistical significance and effect size. If there is also a cut-off in terms of amplitude, then why isn't it explicitly stated in papers (or is it?)
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:12
1
@z8080 the first paper finds a peak/notch an assesses whether they are reliable or not. Then future papers ask if changes in the peak/notch are reliable or not. These future papers are not looking to see if there are new features in the waveform.
– StrongBad
Dec 10 at 16:20
I see - I think that explains the apparent paradox I was asking about. Thanks!
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:36
add a comment |
Averaging does not perfectly remove the noise. Assuming the signal is perfectly correlated across repetitions/sweeps/trials and the noise is independent, than doing from 1 to 2 sweeps will increase the SNR by 3 dB (i.e., decrease the noise by 1/2), Every doubling in the number of sweeps increases the SNR by 3 dB so that after 1024 sweeps the SNR has improved by at most 30 dB. This means that after averaging there is a minimum magnitude required for a peak/notch to be considered statistically reliable. Any ripples with smaller magnitudes are ignored since they are not statistically reliable.
answered Dec 10 at 15:45
StrongBad
1,890623
Averaging does not perfectly remove the noise. Assuming the signal is perfectly correlated across repetitions/sweeps/trials and the noise is independent, than doing from 1 to 2 sweeps will increase the SNR by 3 dB (i.e., decrease the noise by 1/2), Every doubling in the number of sweeps increases the SNR by 3 dB so that after 1024 sweeps the SNR has improved by at most 30 dB. This means that after averaging there is a minimum magnitude required for a peak/notch to be considered statistically reliable. Any ripples with smaller magnitudes are ignored since they are not statistically reliable.
answered Dec 10 at 15:45
StrongBad
1,890623
answered Dec 10 at 15:45
StrongBad
1,890623
answered Dec 10 at 15:45
StrongBad
1,890623
answered Dec 10 at 15:45
StrongBad
1,890623
1,890623
This sounds to me (maybe I'm wrong) like a conflation of statistical significance and effect size. If there is also a cut-off in terms of amplitude, then why isn't it explicitly stated in papers (or is it?)
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:12
1
@z8080 the first paper finds a peak/notch an assesses whether they are reliable or not. Then future papers ask if changes in the peak/notch are reliable or not. These future papers are not looking to see if there are new features in the waveform.
– StrongBad
Dec 10 at 16:20
I see - I think that explains the apparent paradox I was asking about. Thanks!
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:36
add a comment |
This sounds to me (maybe I'm wrong) like a conflation of statistical significance and effect size. If there is also a cut-off in terms of amplitude, then why isn't it explicitly stated in papers (or is it?)
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:12
1
@z8080 the first paper finds a peak/notch an assesses whether they are reliable or not. Then future papers ask if changes in the peak/notch are reliable or not. These future papers are not looking to see if there are new features in the waveform.
– StrongBad
Dec 10 at 16:20
I see - I think that explains the apparent paradox I was asking about. Thanks!
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:36
This sounds to me (maybe I'm wrong) like a conflation of statistical significance and effect size. If there is also a cut-off in terms of amplitude, then why isn't it explicitly stated in papers (or is it?)
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:12
This sounds to me (maybe I'm wrong) like a conflation of statistical significance and effect size. If there is also a cut-off in terms of amplitude, then why isn't it explicitly stated in papers (or is it?)
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:12
1
1
@z8080 the first paper finds a peak/notch an assesses whether they are reliable or not. Then future papers ask if changes in the peak/notch are reliable or not. These future papers are not looking to see if there are new features in the waveform.
– StrongBad
Dec 10 at 16:20
@z8080 the first paper finds a peak/notch an assesses whether they are reliable or not. Then future papers ask if changes in the peak/notch are reliable or not. These future papers are not looking to see if there are new features in the waveform.
– StrongBad
Dec 10 at 16:20
I see - I think that explains the apparent paradox I was asking about. Thanks!
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:36
I see - I think that explains the apparent paradox I was asking about. Thanks!
– z8080
Dec 10 at 16:36
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Psychology & Neuroscience Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpsychology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f21283%2ferp-eeg-noise%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
