↓ Skip to main content

Bootstrap Signal-to-Noise Confidence Intervals: An Objective Method for Subject Exclusion and Quality Control in ERP Studies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bootstrap Signal-to-Noise Confidence Intervals: An Objective Method for Subject Exclusion and Quality Control in ERP Studies
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathan A. Parks, Matthew A. Gannon, Stephanie M. Long, Madeleine E. Young

Abstract

Analysis of event-related potential (ERP) data includes several steps to ensure that ERPs meet an appropriate level of signal quality. One such step, subject exclusion, rejects subject data if ERP waveforms fail to meet an appropriate level of signal quality. Subject exclusion is an important quality control step in the ERP analysis pipeline as it ensures that statistical inference is based only upon those subjects exhibiting clear evoked brain responses. This critical quality control step is most often performed simply through visual inspection of subject-level ERPs by investigators. Such an approach is qualitative, subjective, and susceptible to investigator bias, as there are no standards as to what constitutes an ERP of sufficient signal quality. Here, we describe a standardized and objective method for quantifying waveform quality in individual subjects and establishing criteria for subject exclusion. The approach uses bootstrap resampling of ERP waveforms (from a pool of all available trials) to compute a signal-to-noise ratio confidence interval (SNR-CI) for individual subject waveforms. The lower bound of this SNR-CI (SNRLB ) yields an effective and objective measure of signal quality as it ensures that ERP waveforms statistically exceed a desired signal-to-noise criterion. SNRLB provides a quantifiable metric of individual subject ERP quality and eliminates the need for subjective evaluation of waveform quality by the investigator. We detail the SNR-CI methodology, establish the efficacy of employing this approach with Monte Carlo simulations, and demonstrate its utility in practice when applied to ERP datasets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 25%
Student > Master 10 16%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 13%
Professor 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 19 31%
Engineering 10 16%
Psychology 10 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 7 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,437,241
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,074
of 7,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,352
of 400,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#132
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.