Schiff Steven J
Krasnow Institute, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Neuroinformatics. 2005;3(4):315-8. doi: 10.1385/NI:3:4:315.
"Use a quiet reference." How many times have we heard this mantra during training or practice, interpreting electroencephalogram (EEG) tracings, or implanting intracranial electrodes? How many of us have used common reference EEG for synchrony studies in recent years? Far too many.Perhaps one source of this problem is the number 104. This is the relatively small number of citations to the reference Fein et al. (1988), which should have put to rest any further use of referential EEG for coherence measurements. And in retrospect, a more careful reading by us of Nunez's (1981) text would have instructed us not to do this. How such warnings have managed to escape integration into common knowledge and practice is troublesome. Electrical potentials are all measured with respect to other potentials. Technically, a potential difference is calculated by integrating the electrical field over a given path from one place to another in EEG terms, we mea sure a potential with respect to another potential, measured at one or more electrodes. All EEG potential measurements reflect the paths used to measure those potentials, and do not directly reflect localized regions of the brain beneath one electrode. Worse, in scalp EEG, the layers of cerebrospinal fluid, dura, skull, and scalp serve to smooth, filter, spread out, and redirect currents generated within the brain so that the measured scalp potentials bear a rather tenuous relationship to the underlying (presumably dipole) current sources. In calculating coherence, it is easy to show that if the potential differences are all made with respect to a common reference, then the amplitude of the reference can dominate the coherence estimate (Fein et al., 1988). In recent years, phase synchronization has been increasingly applied to analyze the dynamics of nonlinear systems (Pikovsky et al., 2000). In Guevara et al. (in this issue), we see the extension of Fein's results for phase coherency. The geometry of Fig. 1 in Guevara et al. should be imprinted on all of us the amplitude of a common reference can dominate the calculated phase syn chronization. There is far too much literature within the past decade that calculated phase synchronization from common referenced EEG. The good news is that the fix to remove common reference artifacts is simple. The bad news is that the interpretation of reference- free synchronization results from brain signals requires considerable caution.
“使用一个安静的参考电极。”在培训或实践中,解读脑电图(EEG)记录或植入颅内电极时,我们听过这句话多少次了?近年来,我们中有多少人在同步性研究中使用了普通参考电极脑电图?太多了。也许这个问题的一个根源是数字104。这是对Fein等人(1988年)参考文献的引用次数相对较少,这本该让人们不再将参考电极脑电图用于相干性测量。回想起来,我们要是更仔细地阅读Nunez(1981年)的文章,就会得到不要这样做的指示。这样的警告是如何没能融入常识和实践中的,这很令人困扰。电位都是相对于其他电位来测量的。从技术上讲,电位差是通过在脑电图中从一个地方到另一个地方的给定路径上对电场进行积分来计算的,我们测量一个相对于在一个或多个电极处测量的另一个电位的电位。所有脑电图电位测量都反映了用于测量这些电位的路径,而不直接反映一个电极下方大脑的局部区域。更糟糕的是,在头皮脑电图中,脑脊液、硬脑膜、颅骨和头皮层会对大脑内产生的电流进行平滑、滤波、扩散和重新定向,使得测量到的头皮电位与潜在的(大概是偶极子)电流源的关系相当微弱。在计算相干性时,很容易证明,如果所有电位差都是相对于一个共同参考电极来进行的,那么参考电极的幅度可能会主导相干性估计(Fein等人,1988年)。近年来,相位同步越来越多地被用于分析非线性系统的动力学(Pikovsky等人,2000年)。在本期Guevara等人的文章中,我们看到了Fein关于相位相干性结果的扩展。Guevara等人图1的几何结构应该让我们所有人铭记,一个共同参考电极的幅度可能会主导计算出的相位同步。在过去十年里,有太多文献从普通参考电极脑电图计算相位同步。好消息是,消除普通参考电极伪迹的方法很简单。坏消息是,对来自脑信号的无参考同步结果的解释需要相当谨慎。