↓ Skip to main content

A Reproducible MEG/EEG Group Study With the MNE Software: Recommendations, Quality Assessments, and Good Practices

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
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
A Reproducible MEG/EEG Group Study With the MNE Software: Recommendations, Quality Assessments, and Good Practices
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00530
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mainak Jas, Eric Larson, Denis A. Engemann, Jaakko Leppäkangas, Samu Taulu, Matti Hämäläinen, Alexandre Gramfort

Abstract

Cognitive neuroscience questions are commonly tested with experiments that involve a cohort of subjects. The cohort can consist of a handful of subjects for small studies to hundreds or thousands of subjects in open datasets. While there exist various online resources to get started with the analysis of magnetoencephalography (MEG) or electroencephalography (EEG) data, such educational materials are usually restricted to the analysis of a single subject. This is in part because data from larger group studies are harder to share, but also analyses of such data often require subject-specific decisions which are hard to document. This work presents the results obtained by the reanalysis of an open dataset from Wakeman and Henson (2015) using the MNE software package. The analysis covers preprocessing steps, quality assurance steps, sensor space analysis of evoked responses, source localization, and statistics in both sensor and source space. Results with possible alternative strategies are presented and discussed at different stages such as the use of high-pass filtering versus baseline correction, tSSS vs. SSS, the use of a minimum norm inverse vs. LCMV beamformer, and the use of univariate or multivariate statistics. This aims to provide a comparative study of different stages of M/EEG analysis pipeline on the same dataset, with open access to all of the scripts necessary to reproduce this analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 225 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 21%
Researcher 45 20%
Student > Master 29 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 22 10%
Unknown 54 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 60 27%
Psychology 25 11%
Computer Science 18 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 7%
Engineering 13 6%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 64 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 January 2021.
All research outputs
#5,407,995
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,079
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,303
of 340,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#99
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 340,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.