EEG Preprocessing and Denoising

  • Weiwei Peng


In this chapter, we first introduce physiological and non-physiological artifacts embedded in the raw EEG signals, e.g., ocular related artifacts (physiological) and power line interference (non-physiological). Then, we introduce the montage to describe and apply the location of scalp electrodes in the context of EEG studies. Further, we describe several preprocessing steps that are commonly used in the EEG preprocessing, including filtering, re-referencing, segmenting, removal of bad channels and trials, as well as decomposition of EEG using independent component analysis. More specifically, appropriate band-pass filtering can effectively reduce superimposed artifacts from various sources which are embedded in the EEG recordings. Re-referencing is a linear transformation of the EEG data, through which noise in the reference electrodes could turn into noise in the scalp electrodes. Data epochs that are time-locked to the specific events of interest should be extracted to facilitate the investigation of task/stimulus-related changes in EEG. Trials contaminated by artifacts, as well as bad channels that are not functioning properly for various reasons, should be excluded from further analysis. Given that the EEG data recorded from scalp electrodes can be considered as summations of neural activities, and that artifacts are independent with each other, independent component analysis could be a powerful and efficient strategy to separate artifact from EEG signals.


Physiological artifacts Non-physiological artifacts Filtering Re-referencing EEG epochs Artifact correction 


  1. Acharya JN, Hani AJ, Thirumala PD, Tsuchida TN. American clinical neurophysiology society guideline 3: a proposal for standard montages to be used in clinical EEG. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;33(4):312–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anemuller J, Sejnowski TJ, Makeig S. Complex independent component analysis of frequency-domain electroencephalographic data. Neural Netw. 2003;16(9):1311–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow J. Clinical applications of computer analysis of EEG and other neurophysiological signals. Handbook of EEG. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1986.Google Scholar
  4. Blum DE. Computer-based electroencephalography: technical basics, basis for new applications, and potential pitfalls. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998;106(2):118–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bugli C, Lambert P. Comparison between principal component analysis and independent component analysis in electroencephalograms modelling. Biom J. 2007;49(2):312–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen MK. Analyzing neural time series data: theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  7. Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 2004;134(1):9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gramfort A, Luessi M, Larson E, Engemann DA, Strohmeier D, Brodbeck C, Parkkonen L, Hamalainen MS. MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data. NeuroImage. 2014;86:446–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gratton G, Coles MG, Donchin E. A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1983;55(4):468–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greischar LL, Burghy CA, van Reekum CM, Jackson DC, Pizzagalli DA, Mueller C, Davidson RJ. Effects of electrode density and electrolyte spreading in dense array electroencephalographic recording. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;115(3):710–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herwig U, Satrapi P, Schonfeldt-Lecuona C. Using the international 10-20 EEG system for positioning of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Topogr. 2003;16(2):95–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffmann S, Falkenstein M. The correction of eye blink artefacts in the EEG: a comparison of two prominent methods. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu S, Lai YX, Valdes-Sosa PA, Bringas-Vega ML, Yao DZ. How do reference montage and electrodes setup affect the measured scalp EEG potentials? J Neural Eng. 2018;15(2):026013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hyvarinen A, Oja E. Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications. Neural Netw. 2000;13(4–5):411–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Islam MK, Rastegarnia A, Yang Z. Methods for artifact detection and removal from scalp EEG: a review. Neurophysiol Clin. 2016;46(4–5):287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jung TP, Makeig S, Humphries C, Lee TW, McKeown MJ, Iragui V, Sejnowski TJ. Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. Psychophysiology. 2000;37(2):163–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muthukumaraswamy SD. High-frequency brain activity and muscle artifacts in MEG/EEG: a review and recommendations. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nakamura M, Shibasaki H. Elimination of EKG artifacts from EEG records: a new method of non-cephalic referential EEG recording. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987;66(1):89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oostenveld R, Fries P, Maris E, Schoffelen JM. FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2011;2011:156869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Plochl M, Ossandon JP, Konig P. Combining EEG and eye tracking: identification, characterization, and correction of eye movement artifacts in electroencephalographic data. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vorobyov S, Cichocki A. Blind noise reduction for multisensory signals using ICA and subspace filtering, with application to EEG analysis. Biol Cybern. 2002;86(4):293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yao DZ. A method to standardize a reference of scalp EEG recordings to a point at infinity. Physiol Meas. 2010;22(4):693–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zaveri HP, Duckrow RB, Spencer SS. On the use of bipolar montages for time-series analysis of intracranial electroencephalograms. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117(9):2102–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zou Y, Nathan V, Jafari R. Automatic identification of artifact-related independent components for artifact removal in EEG recordings. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2016;20(1):73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weiwei Peng
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyShenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations