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

[Andrew Chang]

Hi Dr. Bornfleth,

Thanks for your reply very much.
I would like to use ICA to remove eye blinks and eye movements, neck
movements, as well as cardiac and powerline artifacts. The segment I have
is a continuous EEG recording for 10 minutes, which is one block of my
experiment including many trials.
Before ICA, the segment have been high-pass (0.3 Hz) and low-pass (100 Hz).
The components showing activities around the eyes, the back of the neck,
and 60 Hz were removed. As for the cardiac artifact, I it is based on
visual inspection on the waveform to see whether it looks like an EKG.
Any further comments are appreciated!

Best,
Andrew

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Harald Bornfleth <Harald.Bornfleth at besa.de>
wrote:

> 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 <fieldtrip-bounces at science.ru.nl>] *On
> Behalf Of *Andrew Chang
> *Sent:* Sonntag, 10. Januar 2016 21:18
> *To:* 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> fieldtrip mailing list
> fieldtrip at donders.ru.nl
> http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
>



-- 
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/20160117/a9ed6cd4/attachment-0002.html>