[Eeglablist] What would be the best way to determine dipole locations for P300 responses?
smakeig at gmail.com
Fri Sep 5 23:57:13 PDT 2008
Fuh - You may study Makeig et al., PLOS Biology, 2004 (under
"*EEG dynamics underlying visual target
"* to understand our attempt at this!
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Fuh-Cherng Jeng <jeng at ohio.edu> wrote:
> Dear all,
> I have recorded P300 responses using a 64-channel cap in two groups of
> participants and found that the P300 latencies in group A is significantly
> longer than those in group B. As a follow-up of this finding, I would like
> to do some dipole fitting and see if the P300 dipole locations are
> significantly different between the two groups. I have two methods in
> mind, but am not sure which method would be making any sense at all.
> sense than the other in terms of finding the dipole locations for P300
> (1) use dipfit_erpeeg() to fit the ERP topography at the time point where
> the P300 latency is determined by the experimenter.
> (2) do ICA first and use multifit() to do a dipole fitting on a specific
> ICA component that correspond the best to the P300 responses.
> If anyone could help me with this or simply tell me a better way of finding
> the P300 dipole locations, I would greatly appreciate it.
> Eeglablist page: http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/eeglabmail.html
> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu
> For digest mode, send an email with the subject "set digest mime" to
> eeglablist-request at sccn.ucsd.edu
Scott Makeig, Research Scientist and Director, Swartz Center for
Computational Neuroscience, Institute for Neural Computation, University of
California San Diego, La Jolla CA 92093-0961, http://sccn.ucsd.edu/~scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the eeglablist