[Eeglablist] A tentative issue in coherence calculation in EEGLAB for epoched data

[Makoto Miyakoshi]

Dear Iman,

> coherres = sum(alltfX .* conj(alltfY), 3) ./ sqrt( sum(abs(alltfX).^2,3)
.* sum(abs(alltfY).^2,3) );

So 'sum(alltfX .* conj(alltfY), 3)' sums all data points? If so, as long as
the number of data points distribute uniformly across all trials, the mean
of the mean is the same as the grand mean. Am I wrong? Please correct me.

Makoto

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Iman Mohammad-Rezazadeh <
irezazadeh at ucdavis.edu> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> The way the code scripted is to calculate the spectrum from the whole data
> at once
>
>
>
> [alltfX freqs timesout] = timefreq(X, g.srate, spectraloptions{:})
>
>
>
> Not each epoch separately and then make an average from them.  and yes in
> matters !
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Iman
>
> *From:* Makoto Miyakoshi [mailto:mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 23, 2015 3:44 PM
> *To:* Iman Mohammad-Rezazadeh <irezazadeh at UCDAVIS.EDU>
> *Cc:* EEGLAB List <eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu>; Loo, Sandra <
> SLoo at mednet.ucla.edu>; Scott Makeig <smakeig at ucsd.edu>; Chantelle C
> Kinzel <ckinzel at mednet.ucla.edu>; Michelini, Giorgia <
> giorgia.michelini at kcl.ac.uk>
> *Subject:* Re: A tentative issue in coherence calculation in EEGLAB for
> epoched data
>
>
>
> Dear Iman,
>
>
>
> I ask you this without testing it, but does the order of the averaging
> process makes difference in results?
>
>
>
> Makoto
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Iman Mohammad-Rezazadeh <
> irezazadeh at ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi EEGLABERs,
>
> I have been looking into ‘newcrossf’ function and the way it calculates
> coherence for epoched data. Basically, it uses the ‘timefreq’ function to
> calculate the time/frequency decomposition the data.  ‘timefreq’ function
> treats the epoched data as a continuous one:
>
>
>
> X = reshape(X, g.frame, g.trials);
>
> [alltfX freqs timesout] = timefreq(X, g.srate, spectraloptions{:});
>
>
>
> Y = reshape(Y, g.frame, g.trials);
>
> [alltfY] = timefreq(Y, g.srate, spectraloptions{:});
>
>
>
> and calculates the its spectrum using the whole data which is now
> concatenated version of all trials.  So, for each of channel’s pair (X and
> Y , for example) the spectrum is calculated as described above and then the
> joint time-freq decomposition is calculated for coherence value.
>
>
>
> coherres = sum(alltfX .* conj(alltfY), 3) ./ sqrt( sum(abs(alltfX).^2,3)
> .* sum(abs(alltfY).^2,3) );
>
>
>
> *However, similar to the ERSP concept, each trial/epoch might be different
> than others [because of perturbations in subjects’ mental status, mental
> fatigue, etc] and thus I think it is more appropriate to calculate the
> coherence for each trial first and then make the average across trials.*
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Iman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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/20150723/099758ed/attachment.html>