[Eeglablist] Source localization and hippocanpus

[m za]

Dear Makoto and colleagues,

Thank you for the detailed critique. It helped me identify an important
distinction that I should make more explicitly.

My current method does not estimate an IC dipole location, orientation, or
physical dipole moment, and it does not interpret ICA component weights in
absolute physical units. Instead, channel coordinates are first used to
define electrode-based regional groups. The scalp projection of each IC is
then summarized within these groups to obtain a relative regional weight
profile, which is thresholded and used to construct regional time-series
representations.

Therefore, I agree that ICA scaling ambiguity would invalidate any attempt
to interpret these weights as physical dipole strength. That is not the
intended interpretation of my method. The resulting signals are used as
data-driven, electrode-informed regional representations for downstream
connectivity analysis, rather than as quantitatively localized or
physically calibrated sources.

I also recognize that this approach should not be described as anatomical
source localization. A more precise description would be an
electrode-informed regional representation of ICA components, and I will
revise the manuscript accordingly.

Thank you again for raising this issue. It has helped me clarify both the
scope and the limitations of the method.

Best regards,
Marjan Zamani

On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 9:17 AM Makoto Miyakoshi via eeglablist <
eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Hi Yevgeny, Cedric, and Marjan,
>
> Thank you for your comments!
>
> I published the L-EEGibility Atlas on Github and Zenodo.
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/MakotoMiyakoshi/L-EEGibility-Atlas/tree/main__;!!Mih3wA!AF89gXQ_Bw1a_fYT3Lwj_tIHdNTuHFcI9VNexSVkbRNU_Eu6Hws2v5AeyUpAd909X_XItKDCYj7xKhNs_QtbXMho29w$
>
> I also submitted it to the EEGLAB plugin request.
>
> There was a bug in code, so the initially reported L hippocampal source
> contribution is updated from 1.649 to 2.009 microV.
>
> For Yevgeny,
>
> However, the conclusion regarding whether signals from the hippocampus can
> be recorded on the scalp relies on several assumptions, and these can be
> challenged. The first is that the source is necessarily a dipole.
>
>
> I do not understand this. An n-pole model is just a model. You choose which
> model to fit, not the brain uses it. Do I miss something?
>
> The second is that it is a single dipole, not a set of synchronized dipoles
> distributed over a certain area and similarly oriented.
>
>
> Typically, a single dipole model may be used because there is no monopole
> (current conservation) and rapid delay of > quadru-poles for scalp EEG
> recording. For intracranial invasive, things are different.
>
> 1. In addition to the dipole component, a monopole component also
> contributes to the EEG.
>
>
> Invasive brain recording may capture near-DC electrodiffusive
> neuron-extracellular-glia (edNEG) current, for example, between dendritic
> and somatic areas (Halnes et al, there are many of them). But this
> edNEG-caused potential field does not propagate. edNEG is a potential
> field, not a current source.
>
> Likewise, the potential from a system of quadrupoles can propagate over a
> greater distance than from a single dipole.
>
>
> I'm curious if this can really happen. It's certainly different from what I
> learned. I think the point is the word 'a system of quadrupoles' What
> system could it be, like an array formed?
>
> For Cedric,
>
>
> 1) why not including subiculum?
>
> I do not know why the subiculum is usually not counted as a part of the
> hippocampus proper.
>
>
> 2) is this only using dipole fitting tools? what about other methods like
> eLoreta or LCMV beamforming?
>
> No, it is not a dipole fitting tool. It's a leadfield model calculated from
> Colin27 + original hippocampus BEM model.
> The left hippocampus alone (CA1-4) has 5771 vertices.
>
>
> -> I'm surprised, I remember clearly the Colin atlas having the hippocampi
> included when using the ROIconnect plugin for LCMV beamforming, which I had
> to exclude in the code as I suspected it was not reliable, but it was
> there.
>
>
> This is from Destrieux et al. (2010): "Using this process, each vertex of
> the cortical surface was assigned to an anatomical label from the name
> database. On the midline an area labeled Medial_wall grouped structures not
> involved by the inflation process, including the hippocampus, thalamus,
> ventricles, and corpus callosum." I'm sure there are multiple Colin27-based
> atlases. The Destrieux Atlas does not have hippocampi.
>
> -> is a single subject head model the way to go for validating this kind of
> thing? aren't the findings vulnerable to be specific to this person only?
>
>
> Yes, otherwise you won't see clearly defined sulci. I wanted to evaluate
> cancellations of EEG signals due to cortical folding. The finding is biased
> to Dr. Colin's brain, yes, but an averaged brain does not have clearly
> defined sulci. The Destrieux Atlas comes with annotations for all gyri and
> sulci.
>
> For Marjan,
>
> My approach is bottom-up: starting from empirical scalp EEG, each ICA
> component is given a regional score based on its scalp-weight distribution
> and is assigned to an anatomical ROI if it meets the assignment criterion.
>
> IC is not a physical entity. It's just a model.
> An interesting question is, if ICs can ever touch the ground truth of EEG,
> how can it be verified?
>
>
> Your approach is top-down: starting from an assumed ROI-level source, the
> forward-projected scalp amplitude is evaluated against a detectability
> threshold.
>
> No, it is bottom up. It does not start from ROI-level sources, but BEM mesh
> vertices.
> The leadfield matrix of the L-EEGibility Atlas is 343 (ch) x 15002
> (vertices) for the original Destrieux Atlas, plus 343 (ch) x 9308
> (vertices) for hippocampi (I know these hippocampi are mapped too densely).
> So there are 24310 dipoles projecting to 343 scalp electrodes.
>
> One more interesting thing. Your ICA-based approach cannot maintain the
> meaning of the measurement unit (V).
> ICs are often associated with a single dipole model, but what does its
> dipole moment mean physically? Delorme et al. (2012) discussed 'residual
> variance' as a quantifier, but it is not a physical quantity! Unknown
> nature of IC-dipole moment has been the biggest weak point of the
> physiological interpretation of ICA (See also EFB p82-83 for the related
> criticism.)
>
> Makoto
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 8:50 PM m za <ma.zamani.20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi ,
> >
> >  Reading this, I noticed an interesting structural parallel with the
> > ROI-assignment step in the pipeline I shared last month, although the
> > direction and the scientific question are different. My approach is
> > bottom-up: starting from empirical scalp EEG, each ICA component is
> given a
> > regional score based on its scalp-weight distribution and is assigned to
> an
> > anatomical ROI if it meets the assignment criterion. Your approach is
> > top-down: starting from an assumed ROI-level source, the
> forward-projected
> > scalp amplitude is evaluated against a detectability threshold. So, in
> both
> > cases, a quantitatively defined regional measure is compared with a
> > criterion to support a decision, but the decision target differs—ROI
> > attribution in my pipeline versus scalp detectability in yours. I thought
> > that was a neat and potentially complementary parallel, but I would be
> > interested to hear whether you see it differently.
> >
> > Marjan Zamani
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 12:18 AM Cedric Cannard via eeglablist <
> > eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Makoto,
> >>
> >> Exciting development. Thanks for working on this, I've always thought it
> >> is a big gap in the EEG field to have such questions unanswered.
> >>
> >> Quick curiosity questions:
> >> 1) why not including subiculum?
> >> 2) is this only using dipole fitting tools? what about other methods
> like
> >> eLoreta or LCMV beamforming?
> >> 3) "Destrieux Atlas is based on Colin27, which is a single-subject head
> >> model and has annotated gyri and sulci. But it does not come with
> >> hippocampi. So I used HippUnfold (DeKraker et al., 2022, 2023) to
> >> auto-demarcate hippocampi on the Destrieux Atlas."
> >>
> >> -> I'm surprised, I remember clearly the Colin atlas having the
> >> hippocampi included when using the ROIconnect plugin for LCMV
> beamforming,
> >> which I had to exclude in the code as I suspected it was not reliable,
> but
> >> it was there.
> >>
> >> -> is a single subject head model the way to go for validating this kind
> >> of thing? aren't the findings vulnerable to be specific to this person
> only?
> >>
> >>
> >> Cedric
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
> >>
> >> On Friday, August 21st, 2026 at 1:00 PM, Cedric Cannard <
> >> ccannard at protonmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Makoto,
> >> >
> >> > Exciting development. Thanks for working on this, I've always thought
> >> it is a big gap in the EEG field to have such questions unanswered.
> >> >
> >> > Quick curiosity questions:
> >> > 1) why not including subiculum?
> >> > 2) is this only using dipole fitting tools? what about other methods
> >> like eLoreta or LCMV beamforming?
> >> > 3) "Destrieux Atlas is based on Colin27, which is a single-subject
> head
> >> model and has annotated gyri and sulci. But it does not come with
> >> hippocampi. So I used HippUnfold (DeKraker et al., 2022, 2023) to
> >> auto-demarcate hippocampi on the Destrieux Atlas."
> >> >
> >> > -> I'm surprised, I remember clearly the Colin atlas having the
> >> hippocampi included when using the ROIconnect plugin for LCMV
> beamforming,
> >> which I had to exclude in the code as I suspected it was not reliable,
> but
> >> it was there.
> >> >
> >> > -> Are you sure using an automated method like HippUnfold is fully
> >> reliable?
> >> >
> >> > -> is a single subject head model the way to go for validating this
> >> kind of thing? aren't the findings vulnerable to be specific to this
> person
> >> only?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Cedric
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
> >> >
> >> > On Friday, August 21st, 2026 at 10:48 AM, Евгений Машеров via
> >> eeglablist <eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > First of all, thank you very much for this fascinating and important
> >> work.
> >> > > The threshold for EEG amplitude that allows signal registration,
> 1.65
> >> μV, seems reasonable. By comparison, when diagnosing brain death, an
> >> amplitude of oscillations of 2-3 μV does not prove brain function and is
> >> considered an artifact.
> >> > > However, the conclusion regarding whether signals from the
> >> hippocampus can be recorded on the scalp relies on several assumptions,
> and
> >> these can be challenged. The first is that the source is necessarily a
> >> dipole. The second is that it is a single dipole, not a set of
> synchronized
> >> dipoles distributed over a certain area and similarly oriented.
> >> > > The question of the validity of these assumptions arose in my mind
> >> quite a while ago, when I was tasked with using the BrainLoc dipole
> >> localization program (developed by Yuri Koptelov) to analyze clinical
> EEGs.
> >> I was immediately skeptical about the possibility of recording a signal
> >> from a non-cortical dipole on the scalp, since the dipole potential
> >> decreases inversely with the square of the distance. However, practical
> >> experience has shown that sources deep in the brain are localized quite
> >> accurately, and their location is confirmed by recordings during
> surgery or
> >> from implanted electrodes.
> >> > > In an attempt to explain this paradox, I proposed two explanations.
> >> > > 1. In addition to the dipole component, a monopole component also
> >> contributes to the EEG. Its potential decreases less rapidly with
> distance
> >> and can therefore be recorded at a greater distance. A possible source
> of
> >> this component could be fluctuations in the ionic composition inside and
> >> outside the neuron (the contribution of glia may also be significant).
> >> > >
> >>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0006350919030138__;!!Mih3wA!GQ6tkO0-y-UdiBpSSa5dvJ5WwALJ32XNjpXJS-5N7m99k4m-659LlesRaG8YmhUmYS88D71nxC6knyaGTmLBp4yz1xU$
> >> > >
> >> > > 2. The potential from a system of dipoles changes differently than
> >> from a single dipole and propagates over a greater distance. Likewise,
> the
> >> potential from a system of quadrupoles can propagate over a greater
> >> distance than from a single dipole.
> >> > >
> >>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0006350921040114__;!!Mih3wA!GQ6tkO0-y-UdiBpSSa5dvJ5WwALJ32XNjpXJS-5N7m99k4m-659LlesRaG8YmhUmYS88D71nxC6knyaGTmLBvqm70Fw$
> >> > >
> >> > > It is quite possible that both of these mechanisms need to be taken
> >> into account, and even then the complexity of the EEG generation process
> >> may not be exhausted.
> >> > >
> >> > > Your truly
> >> > >
> >> > > Eugen Masherov
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi list,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Earlier this year, we discussed whether scalp EEG can measure
> >> > > > hippocampus. Komal
> >> > > > and I developed a forward model simulator, L-EEGiability Atlas, to
> >> answer
> >> > > > this question. The Github repository is still private. It'll be
> >> published
> >> > > > after Komal registers it to Zenodo. This is a follow up. Technical
> >> detail
> >> > > > of this forward model is provided after my signature.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In this forward model simulation, the parameters uses are:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Dipole moment: 0.17 nAm/mm^2 (which is the strength of sleep
> >> spindle)
> >> > > > Uniform recruitment rate: 66.6% (arbitrary choice, but for a
> >> specific
> >> > > > reason--you will find the reason below)
> >> > > > Selected regions: CA1, CA2, CA3, CA4 in the left hemisphere (no
> >> subiculum)
> >> > > > Total ROI area: 9.59 cm^2
> >> > > >
> >> > > > A critical fact is that EEG signals smaller than 1.65 microV are
> not
> >> > > > guaranteed to be measured (Nuwer et al., 1998). I guess this
> >> reflects
> >> > > > realistic requirements of an EEG recorder's noise floor. Thus, <
> >> 1.65
> >> > > > microV means 'not eligible for scalp EEG'.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In this condition, the maximum scalp potential observed is 1.649
> >> microV!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thus, to measure hippocampal EEG, average dipole moment needs to
> be
> >> > 0.17
> >> > > > nAm/mm^2 and/or average recruitment rate needs to be > 66.6%. Our
> >> next
> >> > > > question is therefore: can we obtain empirical evidence supporting
> >> these
> >> > > > numbers?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > By the way, if the left hippocampus becomes epileptic (uniform
> >> recruitment
> >> > > > 100%, 0.77 nAm/mm^2), you would measure 11.126 microV at the
> scalp.
> >> If I
> >> > > > apply the Murakami-Okada limit of 2 nAm/mm^2, the measured signal
> >> would be
> >> > > > 19.402 microV.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Here is the comparison table to get a feeling of how much depth
> and
> >> folding
> >> > > > penalty the hippocampus EEG undergoes
> >> > > > (all left hemisphere ROIs, 0.17 nAm/mm^2, uniform 66.6%
> recruitment,
> >> > > > amplitude shown is positive peak only at the scalp maximal,
> >> three-layer
> >> > > > BSCR=40 model)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Hippocampus, 9.59 cm^2, 1.649 microV
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Sup Occipital Gyrus, 15.71 cm^2, 36.283 microV
> >> > > > Sup Parietal Gyrus, 34.94 cm^2, 42.330 microV
> >> > > > Postcentral Gyrus, 28.94 cm^2, 26.263 microV
> >> > > > Sup Temporal Gyrus, 24,17 cm^2, 24.420 microV
> >> > > > Inf Front Opercular, 19.75 cm^2, 18.194 microV
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Insula, 30.77 cm^2, 16.238 microV
> >> > > >
> >> > > > All pure Gyri, 784.19 cm^2, 49.404 microV
> >> > > > All pure Sulci, 338.03 cm^2, 48.325 microV
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Whole brain, 2348.56 cm^2, 29.956 microV
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Angular + Supramarginal + Sup Parietal + IntraParietal Sulcus,
> >> 113.42 cm^2,
> >> > > > 80.957 microV
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Note that the area of the selected ROI and the scalp-measured EEG
> >> amplitude
> >> > > > do not correlate. This is because (1) cancellations due to
> >> foldings, (2)
> >> > > > the effect of volume conduction is actually limited locally so
> that
> >> source
> >> > > > effects do not add up at one measurement point.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If you have a request to test some hypothesis/question, let me
> know.
> >> > > > L-EEGiability will be publically available in a week or two.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Makoto
> >> > > >
> >> > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> >> > > > Technical note
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Leadfield-based EEG eligibility (L-EEGiability, pronounced as
> >> > > > 'eligibility') Atlas is an extended version of the Destrieux Atlas
> >> > > > (Destrieux et al., 2011). Destrieux Atlas is based on Colin27,
> >> which is a
> >> > > > single-subject head model and has annotated gyri and sulci. But it
> >> does not
> >> > > > come with hippocampi. So I used HippUnfold (DeKraker et al., 2022,
> >> 2023) to
> >> > > > auto-demarcate hippocampi on the Destrieux Atlas.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Then I determined a physiological plausible range of current
> dipole
> >> moments
> >> > > > in nAm/mm^2 for the human brain (Murakami & Okada, 2015; Inverso
> et
> >> al.,
> >> > > > 2016; Rosen et al., 2019). The reported values are like 0.17 for
> >> sleep
> >> > > > spindle, 0.2-0.35 for visual evoked potential at V1, and 0.16-0.77
> >> for
> >> > > > interictal spikes. Murakami & Okada also proposed a physiological
> >> limit of
> >> > > > 1-2 nAm/mm^2.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I also set a few other open parameters, such as synchronization
> >> rate. This
> >> > > > is completely arbitrary. We need empirical data to fill this in.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The brain-to-skull-conductivity (BSCR) ratio precalculated are 26,
> >> 40, 80.
> >> > > > Although BSCR=26 is the modern estimate, because the model is
> three
> >> tissue
> >> > > > layers without CSF, using BSCR=40 compensates for the lack of CSF
> >> layer
> >> > > > (EFB Chapter 6).
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 5:29 PM Makoto Miyakoshi <
> >> mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Hi all,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I've read this discussion with great interest!
> >> > > >> Here are my thoughts.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> 1. If I adopt a conventional dogma of generative mechanism of EEG
> >> > > >> i.e., all/most of scalp-measured EEG signals entirely generated
> by
> >> > > >> post-synaptic membrane potential in cortical surface (Electric
> >> Fields of
> >> > > >> the Brain, EFB, by Nunez and Srinivasan 2006 adopts this
> >> assumption, for
> >> > > >> example), measuring EEG signals generated in the hippocampus
> using
> >> a
> >> > > >> conventional EEG recorder (i.e., sensitivity limit > 1 microV)
> >> would be
> >> > > >> impossible primarily because of the geometry (too small, too
> deep,
> >> rolled
> >> > > >> shape, etc..)
> >> > > >> 2. However, a modern electrodiffusive neural-extracellular-glia
> >> > > >> (edNEG) model indicates the possibility that non-synaptic source
> >> activity
> >> > > >> affects scalp EEG as well, which is much less studied. See Saetra
> >> et al.
> >> > > >> (2021) for full details (but this one is super technical).
> >> > > >>
> >>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371*journal.pcbi.1008143*libraryItemId=11397962__;LyM!!Mih3wA!BJz_jI7amVJIO4yLx16kUNcvtKfKz2Vq2a8fn-buH6yEmuldbNRSNq8JZ679B42teXAZ4sz3nMIKlNimhKtMlKPZmVs$
> >> > > >> 3. I read the dispute between Joseph's group and Mike's group
> with
> >> > > >> great interest. If I stand on the conventional viewpoint, I agree
> >> with
> >> > > >> Mike, and I usually stand on it. But that does not mean
> >> non-conventional
> >> > > >> source cannot exist, particularly if it is observed in a
> >> low-frequency
> >> > > >> range (below delta). After all, we do not know EEG phenomenon
> >> completely,
> >> > > >> so we are not there yet to make an a priori prediction that can
> >> properly
> >> > > >> bound the observation (i.e., "If we observe X under certain
> >> conditions, it
> >> > > >> MUST BE noise because it cannot be there from biophysics!")
> >> > > >> 4. That said, I still want to emphasize that learning the
> >> conventional
> >> > > >> synaptic dogma and EEG's unique scaling law (i.e., volume
> >> conductor theory,
> >> > > >> including what I call 'transducer array effect' of a dipole
> layer)
> >> is very
> >> > > >> important. For those who are curious, below I provide two sources
> >> of
> >> > > >> information:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> The first material to read is an excerpt from EFB 2nd ed page
> >> 81-83. Here,
> >> > > >> the authors demonstrate a typical misconception/misuse of both
> >> equivalent
> >> > > >> current dipole model and assumption of EEG source distributions
> >> (i.e.,
> >> > > >> small vs. large cortical patches). As a result, such an incorrect
> >> > > >> application leads to an implicit conclusion that there was a 5V
> >> (=5,000,000
> >> > > >> microV) source inside the brain. The authors' following
> concluding
> >> remark
> >> > > >> suggests there exists this known pitfall/misconception in
> >> literature
> >> > > >> reporting dipole source models in general (ouch...)
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> *Of course, such extracellular potentials are too large by a
> >> factor of
> >> > > >> 1000 or more to be physiologically realistic. However, such
> >> considerations
> >> > > >> have not prevented reports of such magical dipoles. One wonders
> if
> >> this
> >> > > >> explains why source magnitudes are often not reported.*
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LGyydB9ZucbBG9EQoZDKAg4CEUJlAWon__;!!Mih3wA!BJz_jI7amVJIO4yLx16kUNcvtKfKz2Vq2a8fn-buH6yEmuldbNRSNq8JZ679B42teXAZ4sz3nMIKlNimhKtMHlzFVrk$
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> The second material to read is my manuscript under review, in
> >> which I
> >> > > >> described what I believe is the correct 'scaling law' of
> >> scalp-recorded EEG
> >> > > >> signals. Please find the section "Where did the small patch model
> >> come
> >> > > >> from, and what does it miss?" in Discussion.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.01.23.26344529v1*libraryItemId=18612094__;Iw!!Mih3wA!BJz_jI7amVJIO4yLx16kUNcvtKfKz2Vq2a8fn-buH6yEmuldbNRSNq8JZ679B42teXAZ4sz3nMIKlNimhKtMsEnkBo8$
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I will submit a separate post about this manuscript, as this
> >> 'scaling law'
> >> > > >> is a tool for a larger aim.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I have one more thing I wanted to report here, which would make a
> >> > > >> practical (and I believe substantial) contribution to this
> debate.
> >> But
> >> > > >> because Komal wants to keep it a low profile until he comes up
> >> with some
> >> > > >> proof of concept, I cannot tell you what it is ha ha. I believe
> >> that this
> >> > > >> solution provides a clear answer to the question "Can EEG measure
> >> the
> >> > > >> hippocampus' at least within the limitation of the conventional
> >> synaptic
> >> > > >> dogma + volume conductor theory.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Makoto
> >> > > >
> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > > To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
> >> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu or visit
> >> https://sccn.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/eeglablist    .
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
> >> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu or visit
> >> https://sccn.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/eeglablist   .
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
> >> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu or visit
> >> https://sccn.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/eeglablist  .
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu or visit
> https://sccn.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/eeglablist .