Optimal filters for ERP research I: A general approach for selecting filter settings.

Filtering plays an essential role in event-related potential (ERP) research, but filter settings are usually chosen on the basis of historical precedent, lab lore, or informal analyses. This reflects, in part, the lack of a well-reasoned, easily implemented method for identifying the optimal filter settings for a given type of ERP data. To fill this gap, we developed an approach that involves finding the filter settings that maximize the signal-to-noise ratio for a specific amplitude score (or minimizes the noise for a latency score) while minimizing waveform distortion. The signal is estimated by obtaining the amplitude score from the grand average ERP waveform (usually a difference waveform). The noise is estimated using the standardized measurement error of the single-subject scores. Waveform distortion is estimated by passing noise-free simulated data through the filters. This approach allows researchers to determine the most appropriate filter settings for their specific scoring methods, experimental designs, subject populations, recording setups, and scientific questions. We have provided a set of tools in ERPLAB Toolbox to make it easy for researchers to implement this approach with their own 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 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.

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 methods, 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 data sets 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.

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.

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.

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

Filtering plays an essential role in event-related potential (ERP) research, but filter settings are usually chosen on the basis of historical precedent, lab lore, or informal analyses. This reflects, in part, the lack of a well-reasoned, easily implemented method for identifying the optimal filter settings for a given type of ERP data. To fill this gap, we developed an approach that involves finding the filter settings that maximize the signal-to-noise ratio for a specific amplitude score (or minimizes the noise for a latency score) while minimizing waveform distortion. The signal is estimated by obtaining the amplitude score from the grand average ERP waveform (usually a difference waveform). The noise is estimated using the standardized measurement error of the single-subject scores. Waveform distortion is estimated by passing noise-free simulated data through the filters. This approach allows researchers to determine the most appropriate filter settings for their specific scoring methods, experimental designs, subject populations, recording setups, and scientific questions. We have provided a set of tools in ERPLAB Toolbox to make it easy for researchers to implement this approach with their own data.