Abstract
Most researchers have employed the average method in the identification of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) because they have assumed that the averaging process results in the cancellation of any type of noise. However, the average method is less effective than is the median method for unexpected, infrequent artifacts. Furthermore (and significantly), the average method does not work well for detecting the endogenous, psychological signals that are noninvariant across every trial. Ruchkin (1988) described two types of possible signal variation in amplitude and in latency. The median method is effective for extreme cases of these variations (i.e., the lack of some signals), even if the amount of data is small and their distribution is non-Gaussian. Importantly, in the latter situation, the trial-to-trial latency jitter of the signal is very difficult to eliminate, which introduces obscure errors into the average ERP measurements. We found that the waveform that was generated by the median method was less affected by this jittering than was that generated by the average method. This effect was demonstrated by simulating the signals of artificial and actual ERP data, when the distribution of latency variation was Gaussian.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Borda, R. P., &Frost, J. D. (1968). Error reduction in small sample averaging through the use of the median rather than the mean.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,25, 391–392.
Dawson, G. D. (1954). A summation technique for the detection of small evoked potentials.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,6, 65–84.
Kerkhof, G. A., &Uhlenbroek, J. (1981). P3 latency in threshold signal detection.Biological Psychology,13, 89–105.
Michalewski, H. J., Prasher, D. K., &Starr, A. (1986). Latency variability and temporal interrelationships of the auditory event-related potentials (N1, P2, N2, and P3) in normal subjects.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,65, 59–71.
Perry, N. W. (1966). Signal versus noise in the evoked potential.Science,153, 1022.
Pfefferbaum, A., Ford, J. M., Wenegrat, B. G., Roth, W. T., &Kopell, B. S. (1984a). Clinical application of the P3 component of event-related potentials: I. Normal aging.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,59, 85–103.
Pfefferbaum, A., Ford, J. M., Wenegrat, B. G., Roth, W. T., &Kopell, B. S. (1984b). Clinical application of the P3 component of event-related potentials: II. Dementia, depression and schizophrenia.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,59, 104–124.
Picton, T. W., &Hillyard, S. A. (1988). Endogenous event-related potentials. In T. W. Picton (Ed.),EEG Handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 381–384). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Picton, T. W., Hillyard, S. A., &Galambos, R. (1976). Habituation and attention in the auditory system. In W. D. Keidel and W. D. Neff (Eds.),Handbook of sensory physiology: Vol. 5. Auditory system. Clinical and special topics (pp. 343–389). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Puce, A., Berlovic, S. F., Cadusch, P. J., &Bladin, P. F. (1994). P3 latency jitter assessed using 2 techniques. I. Simulated data and surface recordings in normal subjects.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,92, 352–364.
Ruchkin, D. S. (1988). Measurement of event-related potentials: Signal extraction. In T. W. Picton (Ed.),Handbook of electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology: Vol. 3. Human event-related potentials (pp. 7–43). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Squires, K. C., Hillyard, S. A., &Lindsay, P. H. (1973). Vertex potentials evoked during auditory signal detection: Relation to decision criteria.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 265–272.
Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., &John, E. R. (1965). Evokedpotential correlates of stimulus uncertainty.Science,150, 1187–1188.
Walter, W. G., Cooper, R., Aldridge, V. J., McCallum, W. C., &Winter, A. L. (1964). Contingent negative variation: An electric sign of sensorimotor association and expectancy in the human brain.Nature,203, 380–384.
Woody, C. D. (1967). Characterization of an adaptive filter for the analysis of variable latency neuroelectric signals.Medical & Biological Engineering,5, 539–553.
Yabe, H., Saito, F., &Fukushima, Y. (1993). Median method for detecting endogenous event-related brain potentials.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,89, 403–407.
Yabe, H.,Sato, Y.,Sutoh, T.,Shinozaki, N.,Hiruma, T.,Nashida T., &Kaneko, S. (1998).The effect of median method on the trial-totrial latency jitter of ERP signals. Manuscript in preparation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
I am grateful to S. Kaneko, F. Saito, and Y. Fukushima for their useful comments, to the anonymous reviewers inEEG Journal for the recommendation of applying the median method to latency jitter, and to Y. Sato for his assistance.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yabe, H. Median method for eliminating infrequent artifacts and identifying the signals blurred by latency jitter and uncertain occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 30, 68–77 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209417
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209417