[FieldTrip] 'rule of thumb' for defining how many independent components to analyze for EEG?
Matt Craddock
matt.craddock at uni-leipzig.de
Wed Nov 7 13:44:33 CET 2012
On 06/11/2012 19:44, Arnaud Delorme wrote:
> Dear Ellie,
>
> you should decompose your full rank matrix. PCA dimension reduction may seriously affects and bias ICA solutions (I have seen a yet-to-be published report on that).
>
> Best,
>
> Arno
Dear all,
Uh oh. If PCA is off the table, what should be done if the data is not
full rank? e.g. if it's in average reference or multiple channels are
bridged etc. Is the bias introduced by PCA worse than trying to
decompose a matrix which is not full rank as if it were full rank?
Wouldn't
cfg.runica.pca =rank(your_number_of_channels)
always set it to 1, and thus tell runica to reduce to only a single
component? Or does setting it to 1 tell runica to detect rank-deficiency
and suggest an appropriate reduction? I don't normally run ICA via
fieldtrip, so am not sure how to tell it to detect the rank and reduce
accordingly; EEGLAB at least asks you about this when it detects rank
deficiency (or at least, should do - i've found it a little
temperamental on this point, but this is the Fieldtrip list so...).
Regards,
Matt
--
Dr. Matt Craddock
Post-doctoral researcher,
Institute of Psychology,
University of Leipzig,
Seeburgstr. 14-20,
04103 Leipzig, Germany
Phone: +49 341 973 95 44
More information about the fieldtrip
mailing list