How Sensitive Are EEG Results to Preprocessing Methods: A Benchmarking Study

• Published in: IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering Vol. 28; no. 5; pp. 1081 - 1090
• Main Authors: Robbins, Kay A., Touryan, Jonathan, Mullen, Tim, Kothe, Christian, Bigdely-Shamlo, Nima
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States IEEE 01.05.2020; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE)
• Subjects: Amplitudes; ASR; Automation; Correlation; Dispersion; EEG; Electroencephalography; ERP; ERSP; Event-related potentials; Guidelines; MARA; Pipelines; Preprocessing; Recording; Spectra; Variation
• ISSN: 1534-4320; 1558-0210; 1558-0210
• DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2020.2980223

Although several guidelines for best practices in EEG preprocessing have been released, even studies that strictly adhere to those guidelines contain considerable variation in the ways that the recommended methods are applied. An open question for researchers is how sensitive the results of EEG analyses are to variations in preprocessing methods and parameters. To address this issue, we analyze the effect of preprocessing methods on downstream EEG analysis using several simple signal and event-related measures. Signal measures include recording-level channel amplitudes, study-level channel amplitude dispersion, and recording spectral characteristics. Event-related methods include ERPs and ERSPs and their correlations across methods for a diverse set of stimulus events. Our analysis also assesses differences in residual signals both in the time and spectral domains after blink artifacts have been removed. Using fully automated pipelines, we evaluate these measures across 17 EEG studies for two ICA-based preprocessing approaches (LARG, MARA) plus two variations of Artifact Subspace Reconstruction (ASR). Although the general structure of the results is similar across these preprocessing methods, there are significant differences, particularly in the low-frequency spectral features and in the residuals left by blinks. These results argue for detailed reporting of processing details as suggested by most guidelines, but also for using a federation of automated processing pipelines and comparison tools to quantify effects of processing choices as part of the research reporting.