跨软件包成功复制大型脑电图研究

Q4 Neuroscience
Aya Kabbara , Nina Forde , Camille Maumet , Mahmoud Hassan
{"title":"跨软件包成功复制大型脑电图研究","authors":"Aya Kabbara ,&nbsp;Nina Forde ,&nbsp;Camille Maumet ,&nbsp;Mahmoud Hassan","doi":"10.1016/j.ynirp.2023.100169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As an active field of research and with the development of state-of-the-art algorithms to analyze EEG datasets, the parametrization of Electroencephalography (EEG) analysis workflows has become increasingly flexible and complex, with a great variety of methodological options and tools to be selected at each step. This high analytical flexibility can be problematic as it can yield to variability in research outcomes. Therefore, growing attention has been recently paid to understand the potential impact of different methodological decisions on the reproducibility of results.</p><p>In this paper, we aim to examine how sensitive the results of EEG analyses are to variations in preprocessing with different software tools. We reanalyzed the shared EEG data (N = 500) from (Williams et al., 2021) using three of the most commonly used open-source Matlab-based EEG software tools: EEGLAB, Brainstorm and FieldTrip. After reproducing the same original preprocessing workflow in each software, the resulting event-related potentials (ERPs) were qualitatively and quantitatively compared in order to examine the degree of consistency/discrepancy between software packages. Our findings show a good degree of convergence in terms of the general profile of ERP waveforms, peak latencies and effect size estimates related to specific signal features. However, considerable variability was also observed in the magnitude of the absolute voltage observed with each software package as reflected by the similarity values and observed statistical differences at particular channels and time instants. In conclusion, we believe that this study provides valuable clues to better understand the impact of the software tool on the analysis of EEG results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74277,"journal":{"name":"Neuroimage. Reports","volume":"3 2","pages":"Article 100169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Successful reproduction of a large EEG study across software packages\",\"authors\":\"Aya Kabbara ,&nbsp;Nina Forde ,&nbsp;Camille Maumet ,&nbsp;Mahmoud Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ynirp.2023.100169\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>As an active field of research and with the development of state-of-the-art algorithms to analyze EEG datasets, the parametrization of Electroencephalography (EEG) analysis workflows has become increasingly flexible and complex, with a great variety of methodological options and tools to be selected at each step. This high analytical flexibility can be problematic as it can yield to variability in research outcomes. Therefore, growing attention has been recently paid to understand the potential impact of different methodological decisions on the reproducibility of results.</p><p>In this paper, we aim to examine how sensitive the results of EEG analyses are to variations in preprocessing with different software tools. We reanalyzed the shared EEG data (N = 500) from (Williams et al., 2021) using three of the most commonly used open-source Matlab-based EEG software tools: EEGLAB, Brainstorm and FieldTrip. After reproducing the same original preprocessing workflow in each software, the resulting event-related potentials (ERPs) were qualitatively and quantitatively compared in order to examine the degree of consistency/discrepancy between software packages. Our findings show a good degree of convergence in terms of the general profile of ERP waveforms, peak latencies and effect size estimates related to specific signal features. However, considerable variability was also observed in the magnitude of the absolute voltage observed with each software package as reflected by the similarity values and observed statistical differences at particular channels and time instants. In conclusion, we believe that this study provides valuable clues to better understand the impact of the software tool on the analysis of EEG results.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74277,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuroimage. Reports\",\"volume\":\"3 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 100169\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuroimage. Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666956023000144\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Neuroscience\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroimage. Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666956023000144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Neuroscience","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为一个活跃的研究领域,随着分析脑电图数据集的最先进算法的发展,脑电图(EEG)分析工作流程的参数化变得越来越灵活和复杂,每一步都要选择各种方法和工具。这种高度的分析灵活性可能会产生问题,因为它可能会导致研究结果的可变性。因此,最近人们越来越关注了解不同方法决策对结果再现性的潜在影响。在本文中,我们的目的是研究不同软件工具的脑电分析结果对预处理变化的敏感性。我们使用三种最常用的基于Matlab的开源脑电图软件工具:EEGLAB、Brainstorm和FieldTrip,重新分析了(Williams et al.,2021)中的共享脑电图数据(N=500)。在每个软件中复制相同的原始预处理工作流程后,对产生的事件相关电位(ERP)进行定性和定量比较,以检查软件包之间的一致性/差异程度。我们的研究结果表明,在ERP波形的总体轮廓、峰值潜伏期和与特定信号特征相关的效应大小估计方面具有良好的收敛性。然而,在用每个软件包观察到的绝对电压的幅度中也观察到相当大的可变性,如在特定通道和时刻的相似性值和观察到的统计差异所反映的。总之,我们相信这项研究为更好地理解软件工具对脑电图结果分析的影响提供了有价值的线索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Successful reproduction of a large EEG study across software packages

As an active field of research and with the development of state-of-the-art algorithms to analyze EEG datasets, the parametrization of Electroencephalography (EEG) analysis workflows has become increasingly flexible and complex, with a great variety of methodological options and tools to be selected at each step. This high analytical flexibility can be problematic as it can yield to variability in research outcomes. Therefore, growing attention has been recently paid to understand the potential impact of different methodological decisions on the reproducibility of results.

In this paper, we aim to examine how sensitive the results of EEG analyses are to variations in preprocessing with different software tools. We reanalyzed the shared EEG data (N = 500) from (Williams et al., 2021) using three of the most commonly used open-source Matlab-based EEG software tools: EEGLAB, Brainstorm and FieldTrip. After reproducing the same original preprocessing workflow in each software, the resulting event-related potentials (ERPs) were qualitatively and quantitatively compared in order to examine the degree of consistency/discrepancy between software packages. Our findings show a good degree of convergence in terms of the general profile of ERP waveforms, peak latencies and effect size estimates related to specific signal features. However, considerable variability was also observed in the magnitude of the absolute voltage observed with each software package as reflected by the similarity values and observed statistical differences at particular channels and time instants. In conclusion, we believe that this study provides valuable clues to better understand the impact of the software tool on the analysis of EEG results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroimage. Reports
Neuroimage. Reports Neuroscience (General)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
87 days
×
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