[Eeglablist] Should I use linear DC-detrend after a high pass filter?

Makoto Miyakoshi mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu
Tue Apr 1 12:02:35 PDT 2014

Dear list,

I got a response from Tim about this issue. Let me forward it to share with

Piecewise linear detrending should not really be regarded as a "filter" per
se. It is intended to remove trend and ultra LFOs within a sliding window
that is approximately the same as that which will be used for subsequent
VAR modeling.

A principal advantage of using a detrending operation rather than a HP
filter is that there is no filter delay or phase shift, and no temporal
smoothing or ringing. The disadvantage is that it is less straightforward
to precisely control the frequency response of the transformation (i.e.
determine which frequencies are suppressed vs. passed). Additionally, one
must consider the overlap between windows (which are added, with a
sigmoidal weighting function to smoothly transition between windows).

When replacing a filter with detrending, one must bear in mind that the
frequency "cutoff" depends on the sliding window size and overlap
properties. In particular, I would make the window size sufficiently large
that it spans no less than a 1/2 cycle of the lowest frequency of interest.

Another option when combining with SIFT is to simply ignore the detrending
option in pre-processing and select linear detrending in the modeling step.
This will apply a linear detrender to each windowed time-series before
fitting the VAR model. This is a principled step to remove the 1st order
(mean) local non-stationarity.

I might suggest that some further empirical investigation into the
properties of the piecewise detrending operation vs. filtering would be a
worthwhile endeavour for someone to take up.


Thanks again Tim for explanation.


2014-03-24 17:42 GMT-07:00 Makoto Miyakoshi <mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu>:

> Dear Mengyan,
> One of the problems of a filter is that it causes 'ringing'.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringing_artifacts
> If you ask me whether the piecewise detrending can substitute high-pass
> filter-I don't know. That seems a good question. Let's ask Tim Mullen.
> Makoto
> 2014-03-22 7:25 GMT-07:00 诸梦妍 <bj12116 at gmail.com>:
>>  Dear eeglablist,
>> I‘m confused about the relationship between DC-detrend and high-pass
>> filter.
>> According to
>> http://sccn.ucsd.edu/wiki/Chapter_6.5._Preprocessing
>> DC-detrend is an alternative to high-pass filter, as they both could
>> remove drifts.
>> Is this mean I needn't use DC-detrend after a 0.1Hz high-pass filter?
>> My recordings were amplified through BrainAmp DC amplifiers with a
>> bandpass filter of 0.016–100 Hz, digitized on-line with a sampling
>> frequency of 1000 Hz. Then the data was processed and segmented to -200 to
>> 800ms epochs.
>> Any suggestions are welcome.
>> Thank you in advance!
>> Mengyan Zhu
>> --
>> Mengyan Zhu
>> Psychology department, Peking University
>> Dormitory 2061, Building 48,No.5 Yiheyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing
>> 100871, China
>>  E-mail: bj12116 at gmail.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

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/20140401/7b431c48/attachment.html>

More information about the eeglablist mailing list