Assessing the impact of artifact correction and artifact rejection on the performance of SVM- and LDA-based decoding of EEG signals

• Published in: NeuroImage (Orlando, Fla.) Vol. 316; p. 121304
• Main Authors: Zhang, Guanghui, Luck, Steven J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.08.2025; Elsevier Limited; Elsevier
• Subjects: Accuracy; Adult; Artifact correction; Artifact rejection; Brain - physiology; Classification; College students; Datasets; EEG; Electroencephalography; Electroencephalography - methods; ERP; Event-related potentials; Evoked Potentials - physiology; Eye movements; Female; Humans; Male; Mismatch negativity; MVPA; Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; Support Vector Machine; Support vector machines; Young Adult; Artifact rejection; ERP; Artifact correction; EEG; MVPA
• ISSN: 1053-8119; 1095-9572
• DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2025.121304

•We evaluated the impact of artifact correction and artifact rejection on EEG/ERP decoding performance.•We explored a wide range of experimental paradigms, including both easy and difficult decoding tasks, various subject populations, and differing electrode densities.•We found that the combination of artifact correction and rejection did not significantly enhance decoding performance in the vast majority of cases.•However, we strongly recommended using artifact correction prior to decoding analyses to reduce artifact-related confounds. Numerous studies have demonstrated that eyeblinks and other large artifacts can decrease the signal-to-noise ratio of EEG data, resulting in decreased statistical power for conventional univariate analyses. However, it is not clear whether eliminating these artifacts during preprocessing enhances the performance of multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA; decoding), especially given that artifact rejection reduces the number of trials available for training the decoder. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of artifact-minimization approaches on the decoding performance of support vector machines. Independent component analysis (ICA) was used to correct ocular artifacts, and artifact rejection was used to discard trials with large voltage deflections from other sources (e.g., muscle artifacts). We assessed decoding performance in relatively simple binary classification tasks using data from seven commonly-used event-related potential paradigms (N170, mismatch negativity, N2pc, P3b, N400, lateralized readiness potential, and error-related negativity), as well as more challenging multi-way decoding tasks, including stimulus location and stimulus orientation. The results indicated that the combination of artifact correction and rejection did not improve decoding performance in the vast majority of cases. However, artifact correction may still be essential to minimize artifact-related confounds that might artificially inflate decoding accuracy. Researchers who are using similar methods to decode EEG data from paradigms, populations, and recording setups that are similar to those examined here may benefit from our recommendations to optimize decoding performance and avoid incorrect conclusions.