[Eeglablist] Options for bad reference (mastoid) channels

[Becky Prince]

Dear Makoto,

Thanks for your response!

I'll be analyzing my data in channel space, so I'll go with average
referencing as you suggest.

Can you (or anyone else) please tell me whether to exclude bad channels
(including both mastoids and any others) before or after applying a common
average reference to the data?

Also, is it ok to re-reference to a common average after having completed
the following processing steps: 1) remove DC offset, 2) 0.1 high-pass
filter, 3) epoch the data?

Many thanks!
Becky


____________________________________________

Becky Gilbert (nee Prince)
PhD Researcher

Room A109
Department of Psychology
University of York
Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK


On 25 September 2013 18:46, Makoto Miyakoshi <mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Dear Becky,
>
> > I believe the convention is to use the average of linked ears or
> mastoids as the reference for optimal measurement of these components,
>
> It depends on whether you want to use ICA to analyze your data in the
> source-resolved EEG or not. If you do, re-reference does not affect the ICA
> results. If you want to use channel EEG for the final analysis, I recommend
> average referencing. If you need to choose 1 electrode, choose Cz or FCz
> because that's another 'convention' I've seen so far (may not specific to
> your task though). Cz and FCz are easy to interpolate.
>
> Makoto
>
> 2013/9/18 Becky Prince <becky.prince at york.ac.uk>
>
>> Dear EEGLAB list,
>>
>> I've run an ERP study on auditory temporal expectations in which I'm
>> interested in the auditory N2b and P3b components.  I believe the
>> convention is to use the average of linked ears or mastoids as the
>> reference for optimal measurement of these components, but my mastoid
>> channels are consistently noisy in all of my participants.  The mastoid
>> channels have higher impedances (~15 KOhms) than the other sites, probably
>> due to the fact that the caps we use have built in mastoid sites that don't
>> fit close enough to the skin.
>>
>> I'm guessing it's a bad idea to re-reference to noisy channels, so I'm
>> wondering what my options are.  Can anyone explain what they would do in
>> this situation?  Are there any resources that explain the effects of
>> re-referencing on specific components?  I'm wondering if I'll be able to
>> see changes in N2b/P3b if I use another reference, e.g. average of all
>> electrodes, and how the appearance of the components (sites/polarities)
>> will be different from those typically reported with a linked ear or
>> mastoid reference.
>>
>> Apologies for the fact that this isn't strictly an EEGLAB question - I'm
>> hoping someone will still offer some advice!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Becky
>> ____________________________________________
>>
>> Becky Gilbert (nee Prince)
>> PhD Researcher
>>
>> Room A109
>> Department of Psychology
>> University of York
>> Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Makoto Miyakoshi
> Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience
> Institute for Neural Computation, University of California San Diego
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sccn.ucsd.edu/pipermail/eeglablist/attachments/20130926/6a1e96d5/attachment.html>