Does Filtering Preclude Us from Studying ERP Time-Courses?

Filtering can distort signals (Lyons, 2004), a problem well documented for ERP data (see, e.g., Luck, 2005; Kappenman and Luck, 2010; May and Tiitinen, 2010). It is thus recommended to filter ERPs as little as possible (Luck, 2005). Recently, VanRullen (2011) provided a healthy reminder of filtering dangers. Using simulated data, VanRullen demonstrated that an effect occurring randomly between 150 and 180 ms post-stimulus can be smeared back in time by a 30-Hz low-pass filter, and appears to start at 100 ms. From this result, VanRullen concluded that if researchers filter their data, they cannot interpret the onsets of ERP effects and should limit their conclusions to peak amplitudes and latencies, without interpreting precise ERP time-courses. However, as we are going to see, we can study ERP onsets by using causal filters

A few simple steps to improve the description of group results in neuroscience

No abstract available

Improving standards in brain-behavior correlation analyses

Associations between two variables, for instance between brain and behavioral measurements, are often studied using correlations, and in particular Pearson correlation. However, Pearson correlation is not robust: outliers can introduce false correlations or mask existing ones. These problems are exacerbated in brain imaging by a widespread lack of control for multiple comparisons, and several issues with data interpretations. We illustrate these important problems associated with brain-behavior correlations, drawing examples from published articles. We make several propositions to alleviate these problems

投稿規程

To summarise skewed (asymmetric) distributions, such as reaction times, typically the mean or the median are used as measures of central tendency. Using the mean might seem surprising, given that it provides a poor measure of central tendency for skewed distributions, whereas the median provides a better indication of the location of the bulk of the observations. However, the sample median is biased: with small sample sizes, it tends to overestimate the population median. This is not the case for the mean. Based on this observation, Miller (1988) concluded that "sample medians must not be used to compare reaction times across experimental conditions when there are unequal numbers of trials in the conditions". Here we replicate and extend Miller (1988), and demonstrate that his conclusion was ill-advised for several reasons. First, the median's bias can be corrected using a percentile bootstrap bias correction. Second, a careful examination of the sampling distributions reveals that the sample median is median unbiased, whereas the mean is median biased when dealing with skewed distributions. That is, on average the sample mean estimates the population mean, but typically this is not the case. In addition, simulations of false and true positives in various situations show that no method dominates. Crucially, neither the mean nor the median are sufficient or even necessary to compare skewed distributions. Different questions require different methods and it would be unwise to use the mean or the median in all situations. Better tools are available to get a deeper understanding of how distributions differ: we illustrate the hierarchical shift function, a powerful alternative that relies on quantile estimation. All the code and data to reproduce the figures and analyses in the article are available online

A Quantile Shift Approach To Main Effects And Interactions In A 2-By-2 Design

When comparing two independent groups, shift functions are basically techniques that compare multiple quantiles rather than a single measure of location, the goal being to get a more detailed understanding of how the distributions differ. Various versions have been proposed and studied. This paper deals with extensions of these methods to main effects and interactions in a between-by-between, 2-by-2 design. Two approaches are studied, one that compares the deciles of the distributions, and one that has a certain connection to the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney method. For both methods, we propose an implementation using the Harrell-Davis quantile estimator, used in conjunction with a percentile bootstrap approach. We report results of simulations of false and true positive rates.Comment: GitHub repository: https://github.com/GRousselet/decinter

Promoting and supporting credibility in neuroscience.

No abstract available

Promoting and supporting credibility in neuroscience

No abstract available

Parametric study of EEG sensitivity to phase noise during face processing

<b>Background: </b> The present paper examines the visual processing speed of complex objects, here faces, by mapping the relationship between object physical properties and single-trial brain responses. Measuring visual processing speed is challenging because uncontrolled physical differences that co-vary with object categories might affect brain measurements, thus biasing our speed estimates. Recently, we demonstrated that early event-related potential (ERP) differences between faces and objects are preserved even when images differ only in phase information, and amplitude spectra are equated across image categories. Here, we use a parametric design to study how early ERP to faces are shaped by phase information. Subjects performed a two-alternative force choice discrimination between two faces (Experiment 1) or textures (two control experiments). All stimuli had the same amplitude spectrum and were presented at 11 phase noise levels, varying from 0% to 100% in 10% increments, using a linear phase interpolation technique. Single-trial ERP data from each subject were analysed using a multiple linear regression model. <b>Results: </b> Our results show that sensitivity to phase noise in faces emerges progressively in a short time window between the P1 and the N170 ERP visual components. The sensitivity to phase noise starts at about 120–130 ms after stimulus onset and continues for another 25–40 ms. This result was robust both within and across subjects. A control experiment using pink noise textures, which had the same second-order statistics as the faces used in Experiment 1, demonstrated that the sensitivity to phase noise observed for faces cannot be explained by the presence of global image structure alone. A second control experiment used wavelet textures that were matched to the face stimuli in terms of second- and higher-order image statistics. Results from this experiment suggest that higher-order statistics of faces are necessary but not sufficient to obtain the sensitivity to phase noise function observed in response to faces. <b>Conclusion: </b> Our results constitute the first quantitative assessment of the time course of phase information processing by the human visual brain. We interpret our results in a framework that focuses on image statistics and single-trial analyses

Age-related delay in information accrual for faces: Evidence from a parametric, single-trial EEG approach

Background: In this study, we quantified age-related changes in the time-course of face processing by means of an innovative single-trial ERP approach. Unlike analyses used in previous studies, our approach does not rely on peak measurements and can provide a more sensitive measure of processing delays. Young and old adults (mean ages 22 and 70 years) performed a non-speeded discrimination task between two faces. The phase spectrum of these faces was manipulated parametrically to create pictures that ranged between pure noise (0% phase information) and the undistorted signal (100% phase information), with five intermediate steps. Results: Behavioural 75% correct thresholds were on average lower, and maximum accuracy was higher, in younger than older observers. ERPs from each subject were entered into a single-trial general linear regression model to identify variations in neural activity statistically associated with changes in image structure. The earliest age-related ERP differences occurred in the time window of the N170. Older observers had a significantly stronger N170 in response to noise, but this age difference decreased with increasing phase information. Overall, manipulating image phase information had a greater effect on ERPs from younger observers, which was quantified using a hierarchical modelling approach. Importantly, visual activity was modulated by the same stimulus parameters in younger and older subjects. The fit of the model, indexed by R2, was computed at multiple post-stimulus time points. The time-course of the R2 function showed a significantly slower processing in older observers starting around 120 ms after stimulus onset. This age-related delay increased over time to reach a maximum around 190 ms, at which latency younger observers had around 50 ms time lead over older observers. Conclusion: Using a component-free ERP analysis that provides a precise timing of the visual system sensitivity to image structure, the current study demonstrates that older observers accumulate face information more slowly than younger subjects. Additionally, the N170 appears to be less face-sensitive in older observers