Ocular Reduction in EEG Signals Based on Adaptive Filtering, Regression and Blind Source Separation

Abstract

Abstract-Quantitative electroencephalographic (EEG) analysis is very useful for diagnosing dysfunctional neural states and for evaluating drug effects on the brain, among others. However, the bidirectional contamination between electrooculographic (EOG) and cerebral activities can mislead and induce wrong conclusions from EEG recordings. Different methods for ocular reduction have been developed but only few studies have shown an objective evaluation of their performance. For this purpose, the following approaches were evaluated with simulated data: regression analysis, adaptive filtering, and blind source separation (BSS). In the first two, filtered versions were also taken into account by filtering EOG references in order to reduce the cancellation of cerebral high frequency components in EEG data. Performance of these methods was quantitatively evaluated by level of similarity, agreement and errors in spectral variables both between sources and corrected EEG recordings. Topographic distributions showed that errors were located at anterior sites and especially in frontopolar and lateral-frontal regions. In addition, these errors were higher in theta and especially delta band. In general, filtered versions of time-domain regression and of adaptive filtering with RLS algorithm provided a very effective ocular reduction. However, BSS based on second order statistics showed the highest similarity indexes and the lowest errors in spectral variables.

Diagnosis of Alzheimers Disease from EEG Signals: Where Are We Standing?

“…Those unwanted components may bias the analysis of the EEG, and may lead to wrong conclusions [21,22]. Consequently, artifact rejection is an important issue in biomedical [23] and clinical [24] applications of EEG.…”

Quantitative Evaluation of Artifact Removal in Real Magnetoencephalogram Signals with Blind Source Separation

“…Yet, in situations where all forms of artifacts are expected, it may be desirable to apply just one procedure able to reduce all artifacts. In order to further clarify the results and to address this issue, Table 2 34 . By comparing Fig.…”

“…The subtraction of those two PSDs computed over completely disjoint sets of channels shows the difference between the activity recorded over those two areas as a function of frequency. Hence, one calculates the difference between the PSDs from 0.5 Hz to 6.5 Hz as most of the OA energy is located at low frequencies 34 . Additionally, an amplitude threshold is set in the MEG recordings to count the number of peaks in the signals whose amplitude is above ±2 pT before and after the artifact removal.…”

Exploration of Recent Advances in the Field of Brain Computer Interface

“…If the subject is interested in a specific device in the environment, i.e., a predefined fixation time is reached, then the BCI system is used to interact with the selected device. [16] b) EEG Signal Pre Processing: The need for signal pre processing is that the EEG recordings typically not only contain electrical signals from the brain, but also several unwanted signals [18][19][20], [24]:…”