[FieldTrip] TFR Baseline Correction Type

[Stephen Whitmarsh]

Dear Mustafa,

I don't want to say there is any rule-of-thumb. My 2 cents on would be to
consider using a relative baseline correction (db, relative, relative
change, etc) to deal with:

A) 1/f, i.e. the fact you find more power in lower frequencies, (visually)
obscuring differences in higher frequencies.
B) different baseline values and absolute response amplitudes between
subjects, making them hard to compare or describe an 'average response'.

Note that in A you can perform baseline correction 'on the fly' when
plotting in fieldtrip, so you can postpone it, perhaps indefinitely, in
your analysis pipeline.
Also note that concerning B, you might not need to apply any baseline
correction in the data you use for your statistics either, as those
probably can be dealt with (i.e. paired-t-tests vs. baseline done within
subjects).

Whether you express relative changes in %, % change, fractions or db, might
be more a personal / reviewer preference than anything else, they can be
converted into each other.

Hope this helps,
Stephen

Op zo 4 jul. 2021 om 23:57 schreef MUSTAFA YAVUZ via fieldtrip <
fieldtrip at science.ru.nl>:

> Hello, Dear FieldTrip community,
>
> I would like to ask you whether there is a recommended way of choosing
> between different options for ft_freqbaseline. Specifically, Is there any
> "rule of thumb" and / or resources for choosing "db" correction over
> "absolute" correction for specific cases. For instance, I am trying to
> calculate TFRs with "total power" method and would like to know whether a
> specific baseline correction type is recommended for this way and another
> one for "evoked power" analysis.
>
> Thank you very much in advance,
> Best,
> Mustafa
>
> --
> *Mustafa Yavuz *
>
> M.Sc. in Neuroscience
> RA in HUBAL Neuroimaging Unit
> Department of Neuroscience
> İstanbul University
> _______________________________________________
> fieldtrip mailing list
> https://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/fieldtrip
> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002202
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/fieldtrip/attachments/20210705/4537ee12/attachment.htm>