[Eeglablist] Movement artifact = Liquid junction potential

Thu May 3 12:54:28 PDT 2018

Thank you Makoto.

In EEG recordings do we expect movement artifact (due to liquid junction
potential) to be expressed at slow frequencies or sudden potential
difference spikes (i.e. temporary electrical discontinuities)? I have found
empirical evidence of both.

Example references:

Isolating gait-related movement artifacts in electroencephalography during
human walking
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kristine_Snyder/publication/278792694_Isolating_gait-related_movement_artifacts_in_electroencephalography_during_human_walking/links/55873f3e08ae71f6ba914812.pdf>

Electroencephalography (EEG): Neurophysics, Experimental Methods, and
Signal Processing
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Nunez4/publication/290449135_Electroencephalography_EEG_neurophysics_experimental_methods_and_signal_processing/links/57bf32c908ae2f5eb32e82a9/Electroencephalography-EEG-neurophysics-experimental-methods-and-signal-processing.pdf>

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Makoto Miyakoshi <mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu>
wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> Let me share this info.
>
> E. Huigen (2000) Noise in biopotential recording using surface electrodes
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Noise-in-
> biopotential-recording-using-surface-Huigen/8fc0837f7af0a36b19799139d9b763
> 969057b985
>
> *%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%*
>
> *2.4 Motion artifact*
> Movement can cause changes in the potentials that are created when an
> electrode is applied to the skin. Normally, when the patient is relaxed,
> and high quality electrodes are used, the recording is not distorted by
> motion artifact. Brinkman (1993) has found no significant correlation
> between the intentional movement of the arm and the noise signal. The
> mechanisms that can cause motion artifact are described next.
>
> *Liquid junction potential variations by electrode movement*
> The various phase junctions in the electrode-electrolyte-skin interface
> all cause junction potentials, sensitive to motion artifact. The
> skin-electrolyte interface can cause artifacts of 400-600 μV when the
> electrode is moved parallel to the skin surface (Smith and Wace, 1995).
> When the electrode is moved perpendicular to the skin the potential changes
> can be up to 900 μV. Firm attachment to the skin can reduce the potential
> changes. The electrode-electrolyte interface also produces artifacts when
> mechanically disturbed. Gatzke (1974, as described in Webster, 1984)
> measured a 15 mV potential change when a pure silver electrode is moved
> in electrolyte. Coating with silver chloride, thus creating a stable double
> layer, produces a 10-fold reduction of the artifact. Further reduction (up
> to negligible value) can be achieved by recessing the electrode-electrolyte
> interface in a protective cup, in which a sponge soaked in gel is placed
> (figure 2-2).
>
> *Skin potential changes*
> Earlier, the stratum corneum and the barrier layer have been identified as
> the major sources of the impedance of the skin. Webster (1984) has also
> observed a potential difference between the inside and the outside of the
> barrier layer. Van Wijk van Brievingh (1988) however states that this
> skin potential is a liquid junction potential between deeper skin layers
> and the electrolyte. The skin potential has a typical value of 30 mV at
> the thorax. Stretching of the skin decreases the skin potential to about 25
> mV. This artifact can be reduced to negligible value by abrading the skin.
> Webster gives 20 strokes with fine sandpaper as an indication. Shackel
> (1959, as described in Geddes and Baker, 1989) developed a method for
> shorting the skin potential, called the skin-drilling technique. The
> epidermis is eroded using a dental burr. The capillaries remain
> undisturbed, so no blood is drawn. Unfortunately, the epidermis is also the
> layer that protects the skin from irritation. A mild electrode gel has to
> be used to prevent
> unwanted effects.
>
> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>
> Wikipedia 'liquid junction potential'
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_junction_potential
>
> In Huigen, Peper, Grimbergen (2002) Med. biol. Eng, they described:
>
> *RECORDINGS  OF  biomedical  signals  from  the  body  surface  often
>  contain  a  substantial  noise  component. This  noise  signal  can
>  severely  impair  the  resolution  of  biomedical  recordings  as  its
>  magnitude  can  be  as high  as  10-60  uVp_p  (GONDRAN  et  aL,  1996).
> This  is  in  the  range  of  EEG  potentials  and  is  at  least ten
>  times  as  high  as  several  types  of  evoked  potentials  (e.g.  visual
>  evoked  potentials  or  somatosensory evoked  potentials).*
>
> By the way I could not find Smith and Wave (1995)* European Journal of
> Anaesthesiology. *If you have a copy, please let me know.
>
> Makoto
> --
> Makoto Miyakoshi
> Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience
> Institute for Neural Computation, University of California San Diego
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Michael D. Nunez
Associate Specialist (Neuroscientist)
Laboratory of Computational and Translational Neuroscience
<http://lopour.eng.uci.edu/>
Dept. of Biomedical Engineering
Human Neuroscience Lab <http://hnl.ss.uci.edu>
Cognition and Individual Differences Lab <http://www.cidlab.com/>
Dept. of Cognitive Sciences
University of California, Irvine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sccn.ucsd.edu/pipermail/eeglablist/attachments/20180503/96f6d1df/attachment.html>