To scale or not to scale: McCarthy and Wood revisited

Haig, Albert R.; Gordon, Evian; Hook, Stephen C.

doi:10.1016/s0013-4694(97)00009-6

Cited by 52 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Winer, 1971), in order to estimate main factor effects and possible interactions between region, response condition, and task factors. In spite of a recent warning from Haig et al (1997) concerning the normalization procedure advocated by McCarthy and Wood (1985), we have proceeded to a ''control'' peak normalization in order to unveil and validate possible interactions embedded in ERP data. Normalization was performed using the most theoretically sound method, i.e., vector length normalization.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ERP Mapping in Phonological and Lexical Semantic Monitoring Tasks: A Study Complementing Previous PET Results

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ERP Mapping in Phonological and Lexical Semantic Monitoring Tasks: A Study Complementing Previous PET Results

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…permutations of the data), (2) recalculating the group-average ERPs, and (3) recalculating the resulting DISS value for these 'new' group-average ERPs. The number of permutations that can be made with a group-average ERP based on n participants is 2 n , though 3 Other methods for determining whether two electric fields differ have been proposed [25,36,64,65]), criticized [21], and defended [58]. Some of these methods use average referenced and/or normalized values (like the Tsum 2 ), but not all, which disqualifies them as true topographic analyses.…”

Section: Global Field Power: a Single Reference-independent Measure mentioning

confidence: 99%

Topographic ERP Analyses: A Step-by-Step Tutorial Review

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this tutorial review, we detail both the rationale for as well as the implementation of a set of analyses of surface-recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) that uses the reference-free spatial (i.e. topographic) information available from high-density electrode montages to render statistical information concerning modulations in response strength, latency, and topography both between and within experimental conditions. In these and other ways these topographic analysis methods allow the experimenter to glean additional information and neurophysiologic interpretability beyond what is available from canonical waveform analyses. In this tutorial we present the example of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) in response to stimulation of each hand to illustrate these points. For each step of these analyses, we provide the reader with both a conceptual and mathematical description of how the analysis is carried out, what it yields, and how to interpret its statistical outcome. We show that these topographic analysis methods are intuitive and easy-to-use approaches that can remove much of the guesswork often confronting ERP researchers and also assist in identifying the information contained within highdensity ERP datasets.

show abstract

“…Notwithstanding critical evaluations (Haig, Gordon, & Hook, 1997;Ruchkin, Johnson, & Friedman, 1999;Urbach & Kutas, 2002), normalization procedures are widely used and recommended in ERP guidelines (Picton et al, 2000).…”

Section: Late Attentional Effects (Selection Negativity)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Looking for faces: Attention modulates early occipitotemporal object processing

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Looking for somebody's face in a crowd is one of the most important examples of visual search. For this goal, attention has to be directed to a well-defined perceptual category. When this categorically selective process starts is, however, still unknown. To this end, we used magnetoencephalography (MEG) recorded over right human occipitotemporal cortex to investigate the time course of attentional modulation of perceptual processes elicited by faces and by houses. The first face-distinctive MEG response was observed at 160-170 ms (M170). Nevertheless, attention did not start to modulate face processing before 190 ms. The first house-distinctive MEG activity was also found around 160-170 ms. However, house processing was not modulated by attention before 280 ms (90 ms later than face processing). Further analysis revealed that the attentional modulation of face processing is not due to later, for example, back-propagated activation of the M170 generator. Rather, subsequent stages of occipitotemporal object processing were modulated in a category-specific manner and with preferential access to face processing.

show abstract

To scale or not to scale: McCarthy and Wood revisited

Cited by 52 publications

References 6 publications

ERP Mapping in Phonological and Lexical Semantic Monitoring Tasks: A Study Complementing Previous PET Results

ERP Mapping in Phonological and Lexical Semantic Monitoring Tasks: A Study Complementing Previous PET Results

Topographic ERP Analyses: A Step-by-Step Tutorial Review

Looking for faces: Attention modulates early occipitotemporal object processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About