How do reference montage and electrodes setup affect the measured scalp EEG potentials?

• Published in: Journal of neural engineering Vol. 15; no. 2; pp. 26013 - 26025
• Main Authors: Hu, Shiang, Lai, Yongxiu, Valdes-Sosa, Pedro A, Bringas-Vega, Maria L, Yao, Dezhong
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England IOP Publishing 26.01.2018
• Subjects: channel number; electrode layout; potential relative error; reference montage; Electrode Layout; Reference Montage; Channel Number; Potential Relative Error
• ISSN: 1741-2560; 1741-2552; 1741-2552
• DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/aaa13f

Objective. Human scalp electroencephalogram (EEG) is widely applied in cognitive neuroscience and clinical studies due to its non-invasiveness and ultra-high time resolution. However, the representativeness of the measured EEG potentials for the underneath neural activities is still a problem under debate. This study aims to investigate systematically how both reference montage and electrodes setup affect the accuracy of EEG potentials. Approach. First, the standard EEG potentials are generated by the forward calculation with a single dipole in the neural source space, for eleven channel numbers (10, 16, 21, 32, 64, 85, 96, 128, 129, 257, 335). Here, the reference is the ideal infinity implicitly determined by forward theory. Then, the standard EEG potentials are transformed to recordings with different references including five mono-polar references (Left earlobe, Fz, Pz, Oz, Cz), and three re-references (linked mastoids (LM), average reference (AR) and reference electrode standardization technique (REST)). Finally, the relative errors between the standard EEG potentials and the transformed ones are evaluated in terms of channel number, scalp regions, electrodes layout, dipole source position and orientation, as well as sensor noise and head model. Main results. Mono-polar reference recordings are usually of large distortions; thus, a re-reference after online mono-polar recording should be adopted in general to mitigate this effect. Among the three re-references, REST is generally superior to AR for all factors compared, and LM performs worst. REST is insensitive to head model perturbation. AR is subject to electrodes coverage and dipole orientation but no close relation with channel number. Significance. These results indicate that REST would be the first choice of re-reference and AR may be an alternative option for high level sensor noise case. Our findings may provide the helpful suggestions on how to obtain the EEG potentials as accurately as possible for cognitive neuroscientists and clinicians.