Brain Topography

, Volume 2, Issue 1–2, pp 73–80

Data reduction of multichannel fields: Global field power and Principal Component Analysis

  • Wolfgang Skrandies
Article

Summary

Electroencephalographic data recorded for topographical analysis constitute multidimensional observations, and the present paper illustrates methods of data analysis of multichannel recordings where components of evoked brain activity are identified quantitatively. The computation of potential field strength (Global Field Power, GFP) is used for component latency determination. Multivariate statistical methods like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) may be applied to the topographical distribution of potential values. The analysis of statistically defined components of visually elicited brain activity is illustrated with data sets stemming from different experiments. With spatial PCA the dimensionality of multichannel data is reduced to only three components that account for more than 90% of the variance. The results of spatial PCA relate to experimental conditions in a meaningful way, and this method may also be used for time segmentation of topographic potential maps series.

Keywords

Visual Evoked Potential (VEP) Brain mapping Global Field Power (GFP) Multivariate statistics Principal Component Analysis (PCA) Spatial PCA Time segmentation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chapman, R.M., McCrary, J.W., Bragdon, H.R. and Chapman, J.A. Latent components of event-related potentials functionally related to information processing. In: J.E.Desmedt (Ed.), Progress in Clinical Neurophysiology, Karger, Basel, 1979, Vol.6: 80–105.Google Scholar
  2. Donchin, E. A multivariate approach to the analysis of average evoked potentials. IEEE Trans. Bio-med. Engng., 1966: 13, 131–139.Google Scholar
  3. Donchin, E. and Heffley, E.F. Multivariate analysis of event-related potential data: a tutorial review. In: D. Otto (Ed.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Event-Related Brain Potential Research Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978: 555–572.Google Scholar
  4. Glaser, E.M. and Ruchkin, D.S. Principles of Neurbiological Signal Analysis. New York: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. Gorsuch, R.L. Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  7. Harner, R. and Riggio, S. Application of Singular Value Decomposition to Topographic Analysis of Flash-Evoked Potentials. Brain Topography, this issue.Google Scholar
  8. Hjorth, B. Eigenvectors and eigenfunctions in spatio-temporal EEG analysis. Brain Topography, this issue.Google Scholar
  9. John, E.R., Ruchkin, D.S. and Vidal, J.J. Measurement of eventrelated potentials. In: E. Callaway, R. Tueting, and S.H. Koslow (Eds), New York, Academic Press, 1978: 93–138.Google Scholar
  10. Lehmann, D. and Skrandies, W. Multichannel mapping of spatial distributions of scalp potential fields evoked by checkerboard reversal to different retinal areas. In: D. Lehmann and E.Callaway (Eds.), Human Evoked Potentials: Applications and Problems. Plenum Press, New York, 1979: 201–214.Google Scholar
  11. Lehmann, D. and Skrandies, W. Reference-free identification of components of checkerboard-evoked multichannel potential fields. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1980, 48: 609–621.Google Scholar
  12. Lehmann, D. and Skrandies, W. Time segmentation of evoked potentials (EPs) based on spatial scalp field configuration in multichannel recordings. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 1986, Suppl. 38: 27–29.Google Scholar
  13. Möcks, J. and Verleger, R. Principal component analysis of event-related potentials: a note on misallocation of variance. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1986, 65: 393–398.Google Scholar
  14. Rösler, F. and Manzey, D. Principal components and varimaxrotated components in event-related potential research: some remarks on their interpretation. Biol. Psychol., 1981 13: 3–26.Google Scholar
  15. Skrandies, W. Latent components of potentials evoked by visual stimuli in different retinal locations. Int. J. Neurosci., 1981, 14: 77–84.Google Scholar
  16. Skrandies, W. Visual evoked potential topography: methods and results. In: F.H. Duffy (Ed.), Topographic Mapping of Brain Electrical Activity, Butterworths, Boston, 1986: 7–28.Google Scholar
  17. Skrandies, W. The upper and lower visual field of man: electrophysiological and functional differences. Progress in Sensory Physiology, 1987, 8: 1–93.Google Scholar
  18. Skrandies, W. Time range analysis of evoked potential fields. Brain Topography, 1988, 1: 107–116.Google Scholar
  19. Skrandies, W. and Lehmann, D. Spatial principal components of multichannel maps evoked by lateral visual half-field stimuli. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1982, 54: 662–667.Google Scholar
  20. Skrandies, W., Chapman, R.M., McCrary, J.W. and Chapman, J.A. Distribution of latent components related to information processing. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 1984, 425: 271–277.Google Scholar
  21. Skrandies, W., Dodt, E., Kofmel, B.A. and Michel, Ch. Scalp potential field topography evoked by lateralized dynamic random-dot stereograms. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., 1989, Suppl. 30: 515.Google Scholar
  22. Wood, C.C. and McCarthy, G. Principal component analysis of event-related potentials: simulation studies demonstrate misallocation of variance across components. Electroenceph. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1984, 59: 249–260.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Skrandies
    • 1
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institute for Physiological and Clinical ResearchBad NauheimFRG

Personalised recommendations