A Potential Source of Bias in Group-Level EEG Microstate Analysis.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Brain Topography Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-07 DOI:10.1007/s10548-023-00992-7
Michael Murphy, Jun Wang, Chenguang Jiang, Lei A Wang, Nataliia Kozhemiako, Yining Wang, Jen Q Pan, Shaun M Purcell
{"title":"A Potential Source of Bias in Group-Level EEG Microstate Analysis.","authors":"Michael Murphy, Jun Wang, Chenguang Jiang, Lei A Wang, Nataliia Kozhemiako, Yining Wang, Jen Q Pan, Shaun M Purcell","doi":"10.1007/s10548-023-00992-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Microstate analysis is a promising technique for analyzing high-density electroencephalographic data, but there are multiple questions about methodological best practices. Between and within individuals, microstates can differ both in terms of characteristic topographies and temporal dynamics, which leads to analytic challenges as the measurement of microstate dynamics is dependent on assumptions about their topographies. Here we focus on the analysis of group differences, using simulations seeded on real data from healthy control subjects to compare approaches that derive separate sets of maps within subgroups versus a single set of maps applied uniformly to the entire dataset. In the absence of true group differences in either microstate maps or temporal metrics, we found that using separate subgroup maps resulted in substantially inflated type I error rates. On the other hand, when groups truly differed in their microstate maps, analyses based on a single set of maps confounded topographic effects with differences in other derived metrics. We propose an approach to alleviate both classes of bias, based on a paired analysis of all subgroup maps. We illustrate the qualitative and quantitative impact of these issues in real data by comparing waking versus non-rapid eye movement sleep microstates. Overall, our results suggest that even subtle chance differences in microstate topography can have profound effects on derived microstate metrics and that future studies using microstate analysis should take steps to mitigate this large source of error.</p>","PeriodicalId":55329,"journal":{"name":"Brain Topography","volume":" ","pages":"232-242"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11144056/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Topography","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-023-00992-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Microstate analysis is a promising technique for analyzing high-density electroencephalographic data, but there are multiple questions about methodological best practices. Between and within individuals, microstates can differ both in terms of characteristic topographies and temporal dynamics, which leads to analytic challenges as the measurement of microstate dynamics is dependent on assumptions about their topographies. Here we focus on the analysis of group differences, using simulations seeded on real data from healthy control subjects to compare approaches that derive separate sets of maps within subgroups versus a single set of maps applied uniformly to the entire dataset. In the absence of true group differences in either microstate maps or temporal metrics, we found that using separate subgroup maps resulted in substantially inflated type I error rates. On the other hand, when groups truly differed in their microstate maps, analyses based on a single set of maps confounded topographic effects with differences in other derived metrics. We propose an approach to alleviate both classes of bias, based on a paired analysis of all subgroup maps. We illustrate the qualitative and quantitative impact of these issues in real data by comparing waking versus non-rapid eye movement sleep microstates. Overall, our results suggest that even subtle chance differences in microstate topography can have profound effects on derived microstate metrics and that future studies using microstate analysis should take steps to mitigate this large source of error.

Abstract Image

组级脑电图微状态分析中的潜在偏差来源。
微状态分析是一种用于分析高密度脑电数据的有前途的技术,但在方法论最佳实践方面还存在多个问题。在个体之间和个体内部,微状态在特征拓扑和时间动态方面可能存在差异,这给分析带来了挑战,因为微状态动态的测量依赖于对其拓扑的假设。在此,我们将重点放在分析群体差异上,利用健康对照组的真实数据进行模拟,比较在亚群体内分别得出一组图谱的方法与统一应用于整个数据集的单组图谱的方法。我们发现,如果微观状态图或时间指标没有真正的组间差异,使用单独的亚组地图会导致 I 型错误率大幅上升。另一方面,当各组的微状态图确实存在差异时,基于单组地图的分析会将地形效应与其他衍生指标的差异混为一谈。我们提出了一种减轻这两类偏差的方法,即对所有亚组地图进行配对分析。我们通过比较清醒与非快速眼动睡眠微观状态,说明了这些问题在真实数据中的定性和定量影响。总之,我们的研究结果表明,即使微状态拓扑图中存在微小的偶然差异,也会对得出的微状态指标产生深远影响,因此未来使用微状态分析的研究应采取措施减少这一巨大的误差来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brain Topography
Brain Topography 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
7.40%
发文量
41
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Brain Topography publishes clinical and basic research on cognitive neuroscience and functional neurophysiology using the full range of imaging techniques including EEG, MEG, fMRI, TMS, diffusion imaging, spectroscopy, intracranial recordings, lesion studies, and related methods. Submissions combining multiple techniques are particularly encouraged, as well as reports of new and innovative methodologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信