[Eeglablist] Question about Order of rereferencing and artifact removal

[Stephen Politzer-Ahles]

Hi Mikolaj,

Yes, you and Makoto are correc about the order issuet--when I sent that
last message I was mistakenly thinking about referencing to average
mastoids, rather than average reference.

Best,
Steve

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Mikołaj Magnuski <imponderabilion at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear Stephen,
>
> as I understand it Makoto was referring to bad channel rejection before
> average referencing. Depending on the number of channels their average can
> be dragged more or less by a high-amplitude 'dancing' bad channel.
> I dont think this would introduce  serious artifacts, but is worth
> considering (I was doing averege reference on a group of files lately and
> did not think about removing bad channels first, while some of the files
> actually have these 'dancers' present, so I'm going to change my pipeline
> and see whether it changes anything).
>
> BTW - is it sufficient to mark the channel as bad (in EEG substructure
> with channel info) for it to not be considered during rereference to
> average or should I interpolate or delete the channel?
>
> Regards,
> Mikolaj Magnuski
>



-- 
Stephen Politzer-Ahles
University of Kansas
Linguistics Department
http://people.ku.edu/~sjpa/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sccn.ucsd.edu/pipermail/eeglablist/attachments/20130323/a9eb7ca6/attachment.html>