[Eeglablist] The earliest reference adopted in Hans Berger's paper (1929)?

[Makoto Miyakoshi]

Dear list,

Here is the summary of discussion about the Berger (1929) which was off the
list. Thank you Pedro and Thomas. I apologize I missed the timely response.

   - Gloor has translated the original papers into English in a book.
   - Berger (1929) used two electrodes only. Hence it was a bipolar
   recording.
   - For recording from patients with missing a part of skull, he located
   both electrodes within that part. For recording from healthy subjects, he
   located the two electrodes mostly 'front to back'.
   - When putting the second electrode on the chest, arm or foot, but this
   ended up with recording ECG mostly.

Makoto


On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Pedro Antonio Valdés-Sosa <
pedro.valdes at neuroinformatics-collaboratory.org> wrote:

> Dear friends
> This is the origial Berger paper.
> I am sure the reference is described there but I don’t kow German.
> Thomas can you help us discover the reference
> Pedro
>
> Dear Dezhong,
>
> Caton (1875) British Medical Journal reported (surface) EEG from rabbit
> and monkey using Galvanometer. Amazingly, you can download this report
> online.
>
> Makoto
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Dezhong Yao <dyao at uestc.edu.cn> wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>   Any one ever read the original EEG paper where what's the reference
>> adopted by Hans Berger (1929)?
>> thanks
>> ------------------------
>> Dezhong Yao  PhD
>> Cheung Kong Professor of Neuroengineering, Neuroimaging
>> E-mail: dyao at uestc.edu.cn
>> Fax: 86-28-83208238; Tel: 86-28-83201018
>> Director, Key Laboratory for NeuroInformation,  Ministry of Education,
>> China
>>               International Joint Research Center for NeuroInformation,
>> Ministry of Science and Technology, China
>> Dean,      School of Life Science and Technology, University of
>> Electronic Science and Technology of China, Sichuan,Chengdu 610054, China
>> Director,  Center for Information in BioMedicine, University of
>> Electronic Science and Technology of China, China
>> http://www.neuro.uestc.edu.cn/bci/member/yao/yao.html
>> 尧德中 电子科技大学 生命科学与技术学院/信息医学研究中心/神经信息教育部重点实验室/神经信息国际联合研究中心
>>
>>
>> ---------- Origin message ----------
>> >From："Dezhong Yao" <dyao at uestc.edu.cn>
>> >To："Jonathan Folstein" <jonathan.r.folstein at gmail.com>, "
>> erplab at ucdavis.edu Listserv" <erplab at ucdavis.edu>
>> >Subject：Re:Re: [erplab] Through a Glass, Darkly: the Influence of the
>> EEG Reference on Inference about Brain Function and Disorders
>> >Date：2016-06-27 03:53:39
>>
>> Jonathan just pointed to the crucial merit of REST!
>> REST does not need to know the true sources ( agree with Spencer, if the
>> true sources can be properly determined, almost all EEG problems solved).
>> actually, REST utilizes the non-uniqueness of EEG inverse problem (
>> non-uniqueness is a trouble problem for EEG inverse problem), REST
>> "recycles waste material", the non-uniqueness means that the same scalp
>> potential can be produced either by "the true sources" or by "various
>> equialent sources", REST abandons to find the true sources, but with the
>> help of positions known/assumed equivalent distribured sources ( dipoles on
>> a closed surface which cover all possible actual sources inside).
>>
>> For practical application, REST does not need to explicitly get the
>> equivalent sources which are actually used to get the transfer matrix R,
>> finally V(zero)=RV(actual). In another word, equivalent sources are just
>> adopted conceptually as the bridge passing through the "glass, darkly" to
>> the truth.
>>
>> For practice, R is determined by electrode montage and head model. A
>> recent work (Federico Chella etal. Impact of the reference choice on scalp
>> EEG connectivity estimation. 2016 J. Neural Eng. 13 036016) showed that
>> REST is the best choice for various montages and models adopted in current
>> EEG practices.
>>
>> For the original idea of REST, pls look at the attached original paper.
>>
>> For more general, welcome to visit www.neuro.uestc.edu.cn/rest
>>
>> Thanks for your interests in REST!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------Dezhong Yao PhD
>> Cheung Kong Professor of Neuroengineering, Neuroimaging
>> E-mail: dyao at uestc.edu.cn
>> Fax: 86-28-83208238; Tel: 86-28-83201018
>> Director, Key Laboratory for NeuroInformation, Ministry of Education,
>> China
>> International Joint Research Center for NeuroInformation, Ministry of
>> Science and Technology, China
>> Dean, School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic
>> Science and Technology of China, Sichuan,Chengdu 610054, China
>> Director, Center for Information in BioMedicine, University of Electronic
>> Science and Technology of China, China
>> http://www.neuro.uestc.edu.cn/bci/member/yao/yao.html
>> 尧德中 电子科技大学 生命科学与技术学院/信息医学研究中心/神经信息教育部重点实验室/神经信息国际联合研究中心
>>
>> ---------- Origin message ----------
>> >From："Jonathan Folstein" <jonathan.r.folstein at gmail.com>
>> >To："erplab at ucdavis.edu Listserv" <erplab at ucdavis.edu>
>> >Subject：Re: [erplab] Through a Glass, Darkly: the Influence of the EEG
>> Reference on Inference about Brain Function and Disorders
>> >Date：2016-06-27 01:13:17The claim is that the sources need not be
>> accurate if ones only goal is to
>> calculate scalp distribution with infinity reference.
>>
>> On Sunday, June 26, 2016, Spencer, Kevin M. <
>> kevin_spencer at hms.harvard.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi everybody,
>> >
>> >
>> > It seems to me that the validity of REST rests upon the validity of
>> > the source localization method (with everything that entails, including
>> > electrode montage, head model, etc.). To me at least, EEG source
>> > localization still seems to be a black art, not a science (except for
>> > early sensory-evoked activity). If any and all EEG activity could be
>> > localized with high accuracy, then REST would be valid, but why would
>> you
>> > need it if you could localize sources so well? If I'm missing something,
>> > please let me know.
>> >
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Kevin
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> > *From:* erplab-request at ucdavis.edu
>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erplab-request at ucdavis.edu');> <
>> > erplab-request at ucdavis.edu
>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erplab-request at ucdavis.edu');>> on behalf
>> > of Jonathan Folstein <jonathan.r.folstein at gmail.com
>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jonathan.r.folstein at gmail.com');>>
>> > *Sent:* Saturday, June 25, 2016 10:15 PM
>> > *To:* erplab at ucdavis.edu
>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erplab at ucdavis.edu');> Listserv
>> > *Subject:* Re: [erplab] Through a Glass, Darkly: the Influence of the
>> EEG
>> > Reference on Inference about Brain Function and Disorders
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi all, I’m letting Micah’s email percolate, but just a quick rejoinder
>> to
>> > Steve’s (second to) last point, which I agree with.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I want to study components that are commonly studied with average
>> > reference (N250 and N170), but my cap is too low density to use average
>> > reference. Therefore, I cannot follow Steve’s advice. If I use average
>> > reference, my scalp distributions will still differ from previous
>> studies
>> > using average reference/high density because av ref is montage dependent
>> > (again, cf. Liu, Quanying, et al. "Estimating a neutral reference for
>> > electroencephalographic recordings: the importance of using a
>> high-density
>> > montage and a realistic head model." Journal of neural engineering 12.5
>> > (2015): 056012., although I think this is commonly agreed, see also
>> Nunez,
>> > Paul L. "REST: a good idea but not the gold standard." Clinical
>> > neurophysiology: official journal of the International Federation of
>> > Clinical Neurophysiology 121.12 (2010): 2177. for a measured and
>> > caveat-laden but still decidedly positive endorsement from Nunez).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > But if I use average mastoids, I get dinged on reviews because I am
>> > departing from the usual reference (I of course make the point that the
>> > posterior N1 was studied using averaged mastoids, but this only goes so
>> far
>> > because different stimuli, paradigms, etc.).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > That is why I am interested in REST: it should give scalp distributions
>> > similar to average reference/high density even when using a low density
>> > cap. In a world where average reference is very widely used, I think
>> this
>> > type of bridge between EEG traditions could be very useful to many
>> > researchers (even ones that don’t play by the rules!).
>> >
>> >
>> > cheers
>> >
>> >
>> > Jonathan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Mark McCourt <mark.mccourt at ndsu.edu
>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mark.mccourt at ndsu.edu');>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I may not appreciate various subtleties, but if the effect of
>> referencing
>> >> is multiplicative/divisive then this will not alter signal/noise ratio,
>> >> will it? If the effect of referencing is additive/subtractive then I
>> can
>> >> imagine that it might. If the latter then why wouldn't researchers
>> >> routinely search for a reference (i.e., some combination of electrodes,
>> >> possibly all) which yields the highest S/N ratio over the electrodes of
>> >> greatest interest?
>> >>
>> >> Mark
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my iPad
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 25, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Murray Micah <Micah.Murray at chuv.ch
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Micah.Murray at chuv.ch');>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear all,
>> >>
>> >> I am new to this distribution list and thus am not 100% sure what is
>> the
>> >> standard “protocol”. So, please forgive any diplomatic mis-steps. I
>> have
>> >> been reading this thread over the past couple of days subsequent to
>> Prof.
>> >> Tian’s circulating of the frontiers topic in the subject line above.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Steve’s figure makes an important point that has been emphasized for
>> >> several decades by individuals like Dietrich Lehmann and many others
>> (e.g.
>> >> Lehmann’s seminal 1987 chapter entitled, “Principles of Spatial
>> Analysis”);
>> >> the topography of the electric field at the scalp is
>> reference-independent.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> However, this by no means should encourage people to think that the
>> >> reference is arbitrary or that one should use a given reference by
>> >> convention with similar works in the field. The choice of the reference
>> >> indeed has dramatic effects on the analysis of voltage waveforms. This
>> >> again has been demonstrated countless times over the decades (see
>> Figure 1
>> >> from Murray et al. 2008 Brain Topography or Figure 1 from Tzovara et al
>> >> 2012 Developmental Neuropsychology for fairly recent examples; the
>> latter
>> >> of which is reproduced here below). The variance at a given location
>> >> changes with a change of reference. In my opinion, this important fact
>> >> often is overlooked and contributes to the confusion that is apparent
>> in
>> >> the postings we have read over the past few days. Given that it is the
>> case
>> >> that analyses with different references will yield different results, I
>> >> find it difficult to see how one can responsibly advise researchers to
>> >> analyze their data with a variety of different references to gain any
>> >> clarity on the neurobiological truth of whether (i.e. when and where
>> on the
>> >> scalp and hopefully by what underlying process) an experimental
>> >> manipulation yielded effects.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I am fairly confident that precisely this issue led individuals like
>> >> Dietrich Lehmann and Herbert G. Vaughan Jr. (and many others, but
>> these are
>> >> individuals with whom I have first-hand accounts) to advocate analysis
>> of
>> >> reference-independent measures of the electric field at the scalp. In
>> the
>> >> case of Lehmann, he advocated analysis of Global Field Power (GFP) and
>> >> Global Map Dissimilarity (a.k.a. Dissimilarity or DISS) (e.g. Lehmann
>> and
>> >> Skrandies, 1980 Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol. 48:609–21). In the
>> case of
>> >> Vaughan Jr., he advocated analysis of Laplacian waveforms (e.g. Vaughan
>> >> 1982 Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> For my own part, I hope these points ultimately reduce some of the
>> >> confusion that seems to persist in our field.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> With my very best regards,
>> >>
>> >> Micah
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> <image003.png>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *Micah M. Murray, Ph.D.*
>> >>
>> >> Director, EEG Brain Mapping Core CHUV
>> >>
>> >> Center for Biomedical Imaging
>> >>
>> >> &
>> >>
>> >> Director, The Laboratory for Investigative Neurophysiology (The LINE)
>> >>
>> >> Department of Radiology
>> >>
>> >> Department of Clinical Neurosciences
>> >>
>> >> Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne,
>> >> Switzerland
>> >>
>> >> www.unil.ch/line
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *CHUV*
>> >>
>> >> *centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois*
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *De :* erplab-request at ucdavis.edu
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erplab-request at ucdavis.edu');> [
>> >> mailto:erplab-request at ucdavis.edu
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erplab-request at ucdavis.edu');>] *De la
>> >> part de* Steven J Luck
>> >> *Envoyé :* samedi 25 juin 2016 19:16
>> >> *À :* erplab at ucdavis.edu
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erplab at ucdavis.edu');> Listserv
>> >> *Objet :* Re: [erplab] Through a Glass, Darkly: the Influence of the
>> EEG
>> >> Reference on Inference about Brain Function and Disorders
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Y’all might want to take a look at the attached figure (Figure 2 from
>> Ch
>> >> 5 in the 2nd edition of An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential
>> >> Technique). It makes a point that in some ways should be completely
>> >> obvious but did not occur to me until I had been doing ERP research for
>> >> about 25 years: Changing the reference simply adds a constant to each
>> >> electrode site. It basically shifts the entire scalp distribution up or
>> >> down, but it doesn’t change the relative amplitudes at the different
>> >> electrodes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I hope this makes it clear that the reference is largely arbitrary.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Steve
>> >>
>> >> <image001.jpg>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 25, 2016, at 1:06 AM, dyao at uestc.edu.cn
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dyao at uestc.edu.cn');> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Compare the spectra maps of A1, and A1+A2 in the attached paper, you
>> can
>> >> see the effect of reference. The real problem is that you do not know
>> >> where the activities are weak, you'd choose a zero/neutral one in
>> general
>> >> by Using REST.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> dyao at uestc.edu.cn <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dyao at uestc.edu.cn');>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *发件人：* ty <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tiany20032003 at 163.com');>
>> >>
>> >> *发送时间：* 2016-06-25 15:46
>> >>
>> >> *收件人：* Smulders F (PSYCHOLOGY)
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','f.smulders at maastrichtuniversity.nl');>
>> >>
>> >> *抄送：* 'Jesse Bengson'
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jjbengson at ucdavis.edu');>; 'Brad Wyble'
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bwyble at gmail.com');>; '
>> erplab at ucdavis.edu
>> >> Listserv' <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erplab at ucdavis.edu');>
>> >>
>> >> *主**题：* Re:RE: [erplab] Through a Glass, Darkly: the Influence of the
>> >> EEG Reference on Inference about Brain Function and Disorders
>> >>
>> >> you maybe right if your assumption about the activities at A2 is
>> small. However, sometime strong activities at both A1 and A2 are also
>> possible, It is not easy to tell exactly. if someday later someone find
>> that the true is strong activities at both ears, this could be misleading.
>> I suggest to use REST to obtain more information.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> BEST
>> >>
>> >> Yin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> At 2016-06-23 15:47:54, "Smulders F (PSYCHOLOGY)" <
>> >> f.smulders at maastrichtuniversity.nl
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','f.smulders at maastrichtuniversity.nl');>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> some thoughts that I find comforting are:
>> >>
>> >> a) If I record with A1 (mastoid bone behind left ear) as reference,
>> >> and include A2 as ‘active’ electrode, then the EEG amplitude at A2 is
>> low
>> >> in comparison to the amplitude at the other electrodes. It suggests
>> that
>> >> ‘not much is going on’ at A2 vs. A1. Of course, this disregards any
>> >> activity that is common to A1 and A2, but I see no good reason to
>> expect
>> >> that this common activity is large.
>> >>
>> >> b) For many ERP applications, we study merely lateralized activity,
>> >> i.e. subtractions of voltage at homologous electrodes of left and right
>> >> hemisphere, as in C3 – C4 for LRP. The reference, that is common to
>> both,
>> >> is then automatically subtracted, so I still sleep well.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Looking forward to the special issue, though.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Kind regards,
>> >>
>> >> Fren
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> >>
>> >> Fren T.Y. Smulders, PhD.
>> >>
>> >> Dept. of Cognitive Neuroscience
>> >>
>> >> Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience
>> >>
>> >> Maastricht University
>> >>
>> >> Postal address: PO Box 616, 6200MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands
>> >>
>> >> Visiting address: Oxfordlaan 55, room 1.012, 6229EV
>> >>
>> >> E: F.Smulders at maastrichtuniversity.nl
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','F.Smulders at maastrichtuniversity.nl');>
>> >>
>> >> T: +31 (0)43 3881909
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *From:* erplab-request at ucdavis.edu
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erplab-request at ucdavis.edu');> [mailto:
>> >> erplab-request at ucdavis.edu
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erplab-request at ucdavis.edu');>] *On
>> Behalf
>> >> Of *Jesse Bengson
>> >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 23, 2016 07:37
>> >> *To:* Brad Wyble
>> >> *Cc:* ty; erplab at ucdavis.edu
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','erplab at ucdavis.edu');> Listserv
>> >> *Subject:* Re: [erplab] Through a Glass, Darkly: the Influence of the
>> >> EEG Reference on Inference about Brain Function and Disorders
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Other than the obvious point that it is uncomfortable and distracting
>> for
>> >> the participants, it is a great reference!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Brad Wyble <bwyble at gmail.com
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bwyble at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear all,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This seems like a good opportunity to ask why the tip of the nose is
>> >> rarely used these days. From a physiological standpoint, it seems hard
>> to
>> >> imagine a better location. It is insulated from nearby muscle activity
>> by
>> >> a thick block of cartilage (like the ears) and has the additional
>> advantage
>> >> of being laterally centered. I use it for all of my recordings and it
>> seems
>> >> an ideal choice for standard ERP work. Is there an argument against the
>> >> dear old nosetip that I'm unaware of?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Best
>> >>
>> >> -Brad
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM, ty <tiany20032003 at 163.com
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tiany20032003 at 163.com');>> wrote:
>> >> Dear all，
>> >>
>> >> Since its discovery, the human electroencephalogram (EEG) has proven
>> >> itself an indispensable tool for brain research. Despite this success
>> >> story, there is a fundamental technical issue that has yet to be
>> resolved:
>> >> the selection of the correct EEG reference. Ideally one would like to
>> >> measure neural activity restricted to certain brain regions. Since EEG
>> >> amplifiers measure potential difference between the activities
>> recorded by
>> >> two electrodes, in addition to the active electrode, one must employ a
>> >> reference electrode which should ideally be at zero. In theory, this
>> might
>> >> be achieved by placing the reference at a point infinitely far away.
>> Yet
>> >> the “infinite reference”, in practice, is an antenna for ambient noise
>> >> which would preempt brain measurements—for example cephalic references
>> that
>> >> minimize unwanted signal pickup.
>> >>
>> >> Examples of such references are the unilateral-mastoid, ear, linked
>> >> mastoids or ears, vertex, the tip of the nose, neck ring, etc.
>> >> Unfortunately all such references are doomed to fail since there is no
>> >> point on the scalp or body surface where the potential is actually
>> zero or
>> >> a constant. This has serious consequences since the non-neutral
>> reference
>> >> may itself reflect physiological dynamic processes that will be
>> inevitably
>> >> embedded into all EEG recordings. Without solving the reference issue
>> we
>> >> are looking at brain activity, as it were, “through a glass, darkly”.
>> >>
>> >> Recent attempts to make this “glass” more transparent have been based
>> on
>> >> mathematically constructing a reference based on physical principles
>> and
>> >> subtracting it from all EEG recordings. The best known example is the
>> >> average reference (AVE). Originally proposed with an analog
>> implementation,
>> >> it was heuristically espoused by Lehman (1971) and later theoretically
>> >> justified since the average of a dipole potential over a spherical
>> surface
>> >> is zero. Consequently, the AVE might be a good choice when a dense and
>> >> whole brain coverage of an EEG montage is available, which explains
>> why it
>> >> is widely accepted.
>> >>
>> >> Nevertheless, AVE has poor performance with a lower number of
>> electrodes.
>> >> An alternative is the Reference Electrode Standardization Technique
>> (REST)
>> >> which used a re-referencing method to reconstruct the desired zero or
>> >> neutral reference, based on the fact that the underlying neural
>> sources are
>> >> the same no matter what a reference is actually adopted.
>> >>
>> >> This Research Topic will encourage the objective comparison of the
>> effect
>> >> that various EEG references may have on inference about brain function
>> and
>> >> disorders—with respect to both physical and computational issues. The
>> >> crucial point is to determine the reference that best identifies neural
>> >> activity and therefore be the basis of improved estimates of various
>> linear
>> >> and non-linear EEG features. These include spectra, amplitude, latency,
>> >> coherence/correlation, network, symmetry/asymmetry, fractal dimension,
>> >> complexity, covariance and related statistical tests. If a single
>> reference
>> >> can be finally recognized universally as the optimal one for general
>> use,
>> >> we will have indeed rendered the “glass less opaque” and thus “know in
>> >> part” more about brain function. To contribute to this end, we welcome
>> our
>> >> colleagues to submit paper with theoretical work, simulation studies,
>> >> practical experimental data analysis as well as critical reviews.
>> >>
>> >> *Important Note:* All submissions/contributions to this Research Topic
>> >> must be in line with the scope of the journal and section they
>> >> are submitted to. While authors are encouraged to draw from other
>> >> disciplines to enrich their papers where relevant, they must ensure
>> papers
>> >> fall within the section, as expressed in its Scope.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *Keywords*: EEG, reference, ERPs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Detailed information can be found at: *
>> http://journal.frontiersin.org/researchtopic/4932/
>> >> <http://journal.frontiersin.org/researchtopic/4932/>*
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> With best wishes,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------
>> >>
>> >> Yin Tian, PhD
>> >>
>> >> Associate Professor
>> >>
>> >> Biomedical engineering department
>> >>
>> >> *ChongQing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China, 400065*
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Brad Wyble
>> >> Assistant Professor -> Associate (July 1)
>> >> Psychology Department
>> >> Penn State University
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://wyblelab.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> <2005 comparative study of different references for EEG spectral
>> >> mapping.pdf>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Steven J. Luck, Ph.D.
>> >> Director, Center for Mind & Brain
>> >> Professor, Department of Psychology
>> >> University of California, Davis
>> >> Room 109
>> >> 267 Cousteau Place
>> >> Davis, CA 95618
>> >> (530) 297-4424
>> >> E-Mail: sjluck at ucdavis.edu
>> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sjluck at ucdavis.edu');>
>> >> Web: http://mindbrain.ucdavis.edu/people/sjluck
>> >> Calendar:
>> >>
>> http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=stevenjluck%40gmail.com&ctz=America/Los_Angeles
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jonathan Folstein
>> > Assistant Professor
>> > Department of Psychology
>> > Florida State University
>> > 1107 W. Call St.
>> > Tallahassee, FL 32306-4301
>> > office: 850-645-0654
>> > fax: 850-644-7739
>> > folstein at psy.fsu.edu
>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','folstein at psy.fsu.edu');>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Folstein
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of Psychology
>> Florida State University
>> 1107 W. Call St.
>> Tallahassee, FL 32306-4301
>> office: 850-645-0654
>> fax: 850-644-7739
>> folstein at psy.fsu.edu
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160720/d08f35bc/attachment.html>