Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Addressing Misallocation of Variance in Principal Components Analysis of Event-Related Potentials

  • Published:
Brain Topography Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interpretation of evoked response potentials is complicated by the extensive superposition of multiple electrical events. The most common approach to disentangling these features is principal components analysis (PCA). Critics have demonstrated a number of caveats that complicate interpretation, notably misallocation of variance and latency jitter. This paper describes some further caveats to PCA as well as using simulations to evaluate three potential methods for addressing them: parallel analysis, oblique rotations, and spatial PCA. An improved simulation model is introduced for examining these issues. It is concluded that PCA is an essential statistical tool for event-related potential analysis, but only if applied appropriately.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achim, A. and Bouchard, S. Toward a dynamic topographic components model. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1997, 103: 381–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achim, A. and Marcantoni, W. Principal component analysis of event-related potentials: Misallocation of variance revisited. Psychophysiology, 1997, 34(5): 597–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achim, A., Richer, F. and Saint-Hilaire, J.-M. Methodological considerations for the evaluation of spatio-temporal source models. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1991, 79: 227–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, A.J. and Sejnowski, T.J. An information-maximisation approach to blind separation and blind deconvolution. Neural Computation, 1995, 7(6): 1129–1159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R.B. The data box: Its ordering of total responses in terms of possible relational systems. In: R.B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1966a: 67–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R.B. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966b, 1: 245–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R.B. and Jaspers, J. A general plasmode (No. 3010-5-2) for factor analytic exercises and research. Multivariate Behavioral Research Monographs, 1967, 67-3: 1–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, R.M. and McCrary, J.W. EP component identification and measurement by principal components analysis. Brain and Cognition, 1995, 27: 288–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, S.H., Cooper, R., McCallum, W.C., Pocock, P.V., Papakostopoulos, D., Skidmore, S. and Newton, P. The principal components of auditory target detection. In: A.W.K. Gaillard and W. Ritter (Eds.), Tutorials in ERP research: Endogenous components, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1983: 79–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dien, J. Addressing misallocation of variance in principal components analysis of evoked potentials. Psychophysiology, 1997, 34(Supplement 1): S31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dien, J. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, in press.

  • Dien, J., Tucker, D.M., Potts, G. and Hartry A. Localization of auditory evoked potentials related to selective intermodal attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1997, 9(6): 799–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donchin, E., Gerbrandt, L.A., Leifer, L. and Tucker, L.R. Is the contingent negative variation contingent on a motor response? Psychophysiology, 1972, 9: 178–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donchin, E. and Heffley, E. Multivariate analysis of event-related potential data: A tutorial review. In: D. Otto (Ed.), Multidisciplinary perspectives in event-related potential research (EPA 600/9-77-043), Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979: 555–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donchin, E., Spencer, K.M. and Dien, J. The varieties of deviant experience: ERP manifestations of deviance processors. In: G.J.M. van Boxtel and K.B.E. Bocker (Eds.), Brain and Behavior: Past, Present, and Future, Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, 1997: 67–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, F.H., Jones, K., Bartels, P., Albert, M., McAnulty, G.B. and Als, H. Quantified neurophysiology with mapping: Statistical inference, exploratory and confirmatory data analysis. Brain Topography, 1990, 3(1): 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G.V. and Hopkins, K.D. Statistical methods in education and psychology, 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R.L. A comparison of biquartimin, maxplane, promax, and varimax. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1970, 30: 861–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R.L. Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, A.E. and White, P.O. Promax: A quick method for rotation to oblique simple structure. The British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 1964, 17: 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, J.L. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1965, 30: 179–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, E. Mathematical models of the event-related potential. Psychophysiology, 1985, 22(4): 395–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J.E. A user's guide to principal components. New York: John Wiley & sons, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H.F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 23: 187–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H.F. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960, 20: 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, R.N., Darcey, T.M. and Fender, D.H. The dimensionality of the human visual evoked scalp potential. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1976, 40: 633–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroonenberg, P.M. Three-mode principal component analysis. Leiden: DSWO Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier, J., Dagnelie, G., Spekreijse, H. and van Dijk, B.W. Principal components analysis for source localization of VEPs in man. Vision Research, 1987, 27(2): 165–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makeig, S., Jung, T.-P., Bell, A.J., Ghahremani, D. and Sejnowski, T.J. Blind separation of auditory event-related brain responses into independent components. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1997, 94: 10979–10984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möcks, J. The influence of latency jitter in principal component analysis of event-related potentials. Psychophysiology, 1986, 23(4): 480–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möcks, J. Topographic components model for event-related potentials and some biophysical considerations. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 1988, 35(6): 482–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möcks, J. and Verleger, R. Multivariate methods in biosignal analysis: application of principal component analysis to event-related potentials. In: R. Weitkunat (Ed.), Digital Biosignal Processing, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1991: 399–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosher, J.C. Multiple dipole modeling and localization from spatio-temporal MEG data. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 1992, 39(6): 541–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Picton, T.W. and Stuss, D.T. The component structure of the human event-related potentials. In: H.H. Kornhuber and L. Deecke (Eds.), Motivation, motor and sensory processes of the brain: Electrical potentials, behaviour and clinical use, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1980, 54: 279–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polich, J. Semantic categorization and event-related potentials. Brain and Cognition, 1985, 26: 304–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherg, M. Fundamentals of dipole source analysis. In: F. Grandori and G.L. Romani (Eds.), Auditory evoked magnetic fields and potentials, New York: Karger, 1990, 6: 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmel, H. The (+/−) reference: Accuracy of estimated mean components in average response studies. Science, 1967, 157: 92–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skrandies, W. and Lehmann, D. Spatial principal components of multichannel maps evoked by lateral visual half-field stimuli. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1982, 54: 662–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L.R. Implications of factor analysis of three-way matrices for measurement of change. In: C.W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in measuring change, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963: 122–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, P.K.H. and Bickford, R.G. Brain stem auditory evoked potentials: The use of noise estimate. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1980, 50: 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C.C. and McCarthy, G. Principal component analysis of event-related potentials: Simulation studies demonstrate misallocation of variance across components. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1984, 59: 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J.M., Tataryn, D.J. and Gorsuch, R.L. Effects of under-and overextraction on principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. Psychological Methods, 1996, 1(4): 354–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z. and Jewett, D.L. Insidious errors in dipole localization parameters at a single time-point due to model misspecification of number of shells. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1993, 88: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwick, W.R. and Velicer, W.F. Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 1986, 99: 432–442.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

    Joseph Dien

Authors
  1. Joseph Dien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dien, J. Addressing Misallocation of Variance in Principal Components Analysis of Event-Related Potentials. Brain Topogr 11, 43–55 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022218503558

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022218503558

Search

Navigation