English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The electroencephalography signal is well suited to calculate brain connectivity due to its high temporal resolution. When the purpose is to compute connectivity from multi-trial EEG data, confusion arises about how these trials involved in calculating the connectivity. The purpose of this paper is to study this confusing issue using simulated and experimental data. To this end, Granger causality-based connectivity measures were considered. Using simulations, two signals were generated with known AR (Auto-Regressive) coefficients and then simple MVAR (Multivariate AR) models based on different numbers of trials were extracted. For accurate estimation of the MVAR model, the data samples should be sufficient. Two Granger causality-based connectivity, GC and PDC were estimated. Estimating connectivity corresponding to small trial numbers (5 and 10 trials) resulted in an average value of connectivity that is significantly higher and also more variable over different estimates. By increasing the number of trials, the MVAR model has fitted more appropriately to the data and the connectivity values were converged. This procedure was implemented on real EEG data. The obtained results agreed well with the findings of simulated data. The results showed that the brain connectivity should calculate for each trial, and then average the connectivity values on all trials. Also, the larger the trial numbers, the MVAR model has fitted more appropriately to the data, and connectivity estimations are more reliable.

Brain Connectivity Estimation Pitfall in Multiple Trials of Electroencephalography Data