Spatiotemporal Analysis of Multichannel EEG: CARTOOL

Brunet, Denis; Murray, Micah M.; Michel, Christoph M.

doi:10.1155/2011/813870

Cited by 624 publications

(614 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

583

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…driven right leg (CMS-DRL) ground. EEG data pre-processing and analyses were conducted using Cartool software (https://sites.google.com/ site/fbmlab/cartool; Brunet et al, 2011). The main interest of the study was to examine to what extent the level of relevance and saliency of peripheral distracters affected early visual processing, uncontaminated by response-related activity.…”

Section: Eeg Acquisition and Preprocessingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task relevance effects in electrophysiological brain activity: Early, but not first

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A current controversy surrounds the question whether high-level features of a stimulus such as its relevance to the current task may affect early attentional processes. According to one view abruptly appearing stimuli gain priority during an initial feedforward processing stage and therefore capture attention even if they are irrelevant to the task. Alternatively, only stimuli that share a relevant property with the target may capture attention of the observer. Here, we used high-density EEG to test whether task relevance may modulate early feedforward brain activity, or whether it only becomes effective once the physical characteristics of the stimulus have been processed. We manipulated task relevance and visual saliency of distracters presented left or right of an upcoming central target. We found that only the relevance of distracters had an effect on manual reaction times to the target. However, the analysis of electrocortical activity revealed three discrete processing stages during which pure effects of distracter saliency (~80-160 ms), followed by an interaction between saliency and relevance (~130-240 ms) and finally pure effects of relevance (~230-370 ms) were observed. Electrical sources of early saliency effects and later relevance effects were localized in the posterior parietal cortex, predominantly over the right hemisphere. These findings support the view that during the initial feedforward stage only physical (bottom-up) factors determine cortical responses to visual stimuli, while top-down effects interfere at later processing stages.

show abstract

Section: Eeg Acquisition and Preprocessingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task relevance effects in electrophysiological brain activity: Early, but not first

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…EEG data pre-processing and analyses were conducted using Cartool software (http://sites.google.com/ site/fbmlab/cartool; Brunet et al, 2011). EEG epochs from 100 msec pre-to 300 msec post-stimulus onset were averaged, for each participant, for all Go stimuli and separately for the first four blocks (Beginning condition, BEG) and the four last blocks (End condition, END) of the SST task.…”

Section: Eeg Acquisition and Pre-processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plastic modifications within inhibitory control networks induced by practicing a stop-signal task: An electrical neuroimaging study

Manuel

Bernasconi

Spierer

2013

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Offline analyses were performed with Cartool software (Brunet et al, 2011). The raw EEG data were first down-sampled to 512 Hz to reduce computational load and bandpass filtered (0.31-40 Hz, Notch 50 Hz and DC removed).…”

Section: Electrophysiological Recording and Data Pre-processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Global electric field analyses were carried out using the Cartool software (Brunet et al, 2011). By contrast to local, single-electrode level analyses of the ERP, the analysis of the global field power (GFP) and of the ERP topography (Global Map Dissimilarity, GMD) is referenceindependent and enables disentangling if the observed effects follow from change in responses gain and/or change in the configuration of brain networks across experimental conditions (e.g.…”

Section: Global Electric Field Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…GMD is calculated as the root mean square of the difference between strength-normalized vectors (here the instantaneous voltage potentials across the electrode montage). We analyzed GMD values between the GNG vs. SNG conditions as a function of peri-stimulus time using the following approach: GMD at each time point was compared with an empirical distribution derived from a bootstrapping procedure (1000 permutations per data point) based on randomly reassigning each participant's data to either of the two conditions (see details in Brunet et al, 2011).…”

Section: Global Electric Field Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early attentional processes distinguish selective from global motor inhibitory control: An electrical neuroimaging study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid stopping of specific parts of movements is frequently required in daily life. Yet, whether selective inhibitory control of movements is mediated by a specific neural pathway or by the combination between a global stopping of all ongoing motor activity followed by the re-initiation of task-relevant movements remains unclear. To address this question, we applied time-wise statistical analyses of the topography, global field power and electrical sources of the event-related potentials to the global vs selective inhibition stimuli presented during a Go/NoGo task. Participants (n = 18) had to respond as fast as possible with their two hands to Go stimuli and to withhold the response from the two hands (global inhibition condition, GNG) or from only one hand (selective inhibition condition, SNG) when specific NoGo stimuli were presented. Behaviorally, we replicated previous evidence for slower response times in the SNG than in the Go condition. Electrophysiologically, there were two distinct phases of event-related potentials modulations between the GNG and the SNG conditions. At 110-150 ms post-stimulus onset, there was a difference in the strength of the electric field without concomitant topographic modulation, indicating the differential engagement of statistically indistinguishable configurations of neural generators for selective and global inhibitory control. At 150-200 ms, there was topographic modulation, indicating the engagement of distinct brain networks. Source estimations localized these effects within bilateral temporo-parieto-occipital and within parieto-central networks, respectively. Our results suggest that while both types of motor inhibitory control depend on global stopping mechanisms, selective and global inhibition still differ quantitatively at early attention-related processing phases.

show abstract

Spatiotemporal Analysis of Multichannel EEG: CARTOOL

Cited by 624 publications

References 61 publications

Task relevance effects in electrophysiological brain activity: Early, but not first

Task relevance effects in electrophysiological brain activity: Early, but not first

Plastic modifications within inhibitory control networks induced by practicing a stop-signal task: An electrical neuroimaging study

Early attentional processes distinguish selective from global motor inhibitory control: An electrical neuroimaging study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About