Advertisement

The Removal Of Ocular Artifacts From EEG Signals: A Comparison of Performances For Different Methods

  • Klados Manousos A. Email author
  • C. Papadelis
  • C. D. Lithari
  • P. D. Bamidis
Part of the IFMBE Proceedings book series (IFMBE, volume 22)

Abstract

The presence of electrooculographic (EOG) artifacts in the electroencephalographic (EEG) signal is a major problem in the study of brain potentials. A variety of algorithms have been proposed to reject these artifacts including methods based on regression and blind source separation (BSS) techniques. None of them has so far been established as the method of choice. In the present study, the performances of five widely used EOG artifact rejection techniques are compared. The compared methodologies include two fully automated regression methods, one based on Least Mean Square (LMS) for its optimization process, and the other on Recursive Least Square (RLS) algorithm, two BSS techniques which use respectively the Extended — Independent Component Analysis (ext — ICA) and the Second Order Blind Identification (SOBI), and finally a time-varying adaptive algorithm based on H principles (H TV). Each algorithm was applied in real EEG data and then their performance quantified in the time domain. The performance of RLS and H TV were poor in removing eye — blink artifacts. For the rest of the methods the results supported the use of LMS technique and suggested the need for further research examining the performance of various artifact rejection techniques in both time and frequency domain.

Keywords

EOG EEG Artifacts LMS ICA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berg B, Scherg M. (1991) Dipole models of eye movements and blinks. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol; 79:36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Croft R.J., Barry R.J., (2000). Removal of ocular artifact from the EEG: a review. Neurophysiologie Clinique 30, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lins, O.G., Picton, T.W., Berg, P., Scherg, M., (1993). Ocular artefacts in recording EEGs and event-related potentials: II. Source dipoles and source components. Brain Topography 6(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jung T.P., Humphries C., Lee T.W., Makeig S., et al. (1998). Extended ICA Removes Artifacts from Electroencephalographic Recordings. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 10, M. Jordan et al. Eds., MIT Press, Cambridge USAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garrick L. Wallstrom, Robert E. Kass, Anita Miller, Jeffrey F. Cohn, Nathan A. Fox (2004). Automatic correction of ocular artifacts in the EEG: a comparison of regression-based and component-based methods, International Journal of Psychophysiology 53 105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. M. C. van den Berg-Lenssen, J. A. M. van Gisbergen and B. W. Jervis (1994), Comparison of two methods for correcting ocular artefacts in EEGs, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 32: 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rodney J. Croft, Jody S. Chandler, Robert J. Barry, Nicholas R. Cooper and Adam R. Clarke, (2004), EOG correction: A comparison of four methods, Psychophysiology 42:16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saeid Sanei and J.A. Chambers, (2007) EEG signal Processing, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. UK.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. He, G. Wilson, C. Russell, (2004) Removal of ocular artefacts from electroencephalogram by adaptive filtering, Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 42 407–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomez-Herrero G., De Clercq W., Anwar H., et al. (2006). Automatic removal of ocular artifacts in the EEG without a reference EOG channel. In 7th Nordic Signal Processing Symposium NORSIG, Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Puthusserypady S., Ratnarajah T., (2006) Robust adaptive techniques for minimization of EOG artefacts from EEG signals. Signal Processing 86 2351–2363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. J. Lang, M. M. Bradley, and B. N. Cuthbert, (1999), International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Technical Manual and Affective Ratings, Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida, Gainsville, FLGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A Delorme & S Makeig., (2004), EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics, Journal of Neuroscience Methods 134:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bell A. J., Sejnowski T. J. (1995). An information-maximization approach to blind separation and blind deconvolution. Neural Computation, 7, 1129–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee T.-W., Girolami M., Sejnowski T. J. (1999). Independent component analysis using an extended infomax algorithm for mixed sub-Gaussian and super Gaussian sources. Neural Computation, 11, 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klados Manousos A. 
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Papadelis
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. D. Lithari
    • 1
  • P. D. Bamidis
    • 1
  1. 1.School Of Medicine, Laboratory of Medical InformaticsAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Brain Science Institute (BSI), Lab For Human Brain DynamicsRIKENWako-shi, SaitamaJapan

Personalised recommendations