[FieldTrip] Comparing ICA methods between toolboxes (BESA vs. Fieldtrip)

[Harald Bornfleth]

Dear Andrew,

 

Thanks for bringing this up. I can try to shed some light on the ICA method used in BESA Research; however, I can not comment on the implementation in FieldTrip. 

 

The method behind ICA analysis in BESA Research is the extended infomax ICA algorithm (Lee TW et al.: Independent component analysis using an extended infomax algorithm for mixed sub-Gaussian and super-Gaussian sources. Neural Computation 11(2), 1999, 409-433). This algorithm is very well suited to remove cardiac and powerline artifacts.  Depending on the data, it may also be used to remove ocular (blink) and electrode artifacts. To assess whether your artifact removal is trustworthy more information about your processing steps are needed. What types of artifacts are you trying to correct? What segments are you using to determine the artifact topographies and what segments are you finally correcting? 

 

Best regards,

Harald

 

 

Dr. Harald Bornfleth

Product Manager BESA Research

 

BESA GmbH

Freihamer Strasse 18

82166 Graefelfing/Germany

http://www.besa.de

 

E: Harald.Bornfleth at besa.de

T: +49 89 8980 9968

 

 

HRB Munich 109956

CEO: Dr. Tobias Scherg, CFO: Theodor Scherg

Director of Research: Dr. Michael Scherg

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: fieldtrip-bounces at science.ru.nl <mailto:fieldtrip-bounces at science.ru.nl>  [mailto:fieldtrip-bounces at science.ru.nl] On Behalf Of Andrew Chang
Sent: Sonntag, 10. Januar 2016 21:18
To: fieldtrip at science.ru.nl <mailto:fieldtrip at science.ru.nl> 
Subject: [FieldTrip] Comparing ICA methods between toolboxes (BESA vs. Fieldtrip)

 

Dear Fieldtrip users,

 

I am wondering whether anyone has compared the performances of the ICA methods among M/EEG toolboxes. Especially, how is the performance of ICA in BESA Research 6.0, compared to Fieldtrip?

I have an EEG data set which has been processed in BESA, including removing artifact using ICA. I am wondering whether I can trust it, or I should reprocess it in Fieldtrip. Any comments will be appreciated!

 

Happy new year!

 

Best,

Andrew

 

-- 

Andrew Chang
Ph.D. Candidate
Auditory Development Lab

Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour
McMaster University

http://changa5.wordpress.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/attachments/20160115/388bfe79/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00004.txt
URL: <http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/attachments/20160115/388bfe79/attachment-0002.txt>