Estimation of overlapped Eye Fixation Related Potentials: The General Linear Model, a more flexible framework than the ADJAR algorithm

Abstract

The Eye Fixation Related Potential (EFRP) estimation is the average of EEG signals across epochs at ocular fixation onset. Its main limitation is the overlapping issue. Inter Fixation Intervals (IFI) - typically around 300 ms in the case of unrestricted eye movement- depend on participants’ oculomotor patterns, and can be shorter than the latency of the components of the evoked potential. If the duration of an epoch is longer than the IFI value, more than one fixation can occur, and some overlapping between adjacent neural responses ensues. The classical average does not take into account either the presence of several fixations during an epoch or overlapping. The Adjacent Response algorithm (ADJAR), which is popular for event-related potential estimation, was compared to the General Linear Model (GLM) on a real dataset from a conjoint EEG and eye-tracking experiment to address the overlapping issue. The results showed that the ADJAR algorithm was based on assumptions that were too restrictive for EFRP estimation. The General Linear Model appeared to be more robust and efficient. Different configurations of this model were compared to estimate the potential elicited at image onset, as well as EFRP at the beginning of exploration. These configurations took into account the overlap between the event-related potential at stimulus presentation and the following EFRP, and the distinction between the potential elicited by the first fixation onset and subsequent ones. The choice of the General Linear Model configuration was a tradeoff between assumptions about expected behavior and the quality of the EFRP estimation: the number of different potentials estimated by a given model must be controlled to avoid erroneous estimations with large variances.

No Evidence for a Role of Spatially Modulated α-Band Activity in Tactile Remapping and Short-Latency, Overt Orienting Behavior

“…This approach has gained track over the last decade as a way to analyze EEG data obtained from complex setups that combine multiple experimental factors (Groppe et al, 2011;Pernet et al, 2011;Smith and Kutas, 2015b). Linear deconvolution is maybe best known from functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis (Dale, 1999), but it has been applied successfully in EEG and MEG both for time-series (Lütkenhöner, 2010;Dandekar et al, 2012;Kristensen et al, 2017;Cornelissen et al, 2019) and time-frequency (Litvak et al, 2013) analysis. Disentangling different types of events, such as stimuli and motor responses, is possible in this framework because events occur with varying temporal overlap during the course of an experiment, so that an event's effect over time overlaps with other events' effects of different time points with each occurrence, allowing separation of effects with standard regression methods.…”

Towards real-world neuroscience using mobile EEG and augmented reality

“…However, we will also likely miss numerous times when each item was fixated upon, and when the item was first seen. An alternative, more flexible approach, could involve the use of eye-tracking to define the time-point when a stimulus is fixated upon, with this information being used to construct fixation-related potentials (Kamienkowski et al, 2012; Kristensen et al, 2017). As such, future studies could look to incorporate eye-tracking measures during mobile EEG and AR for more precise object recognition effects.…”

Wild lab: A naturalistic free viewing experiment reveals previously unknown EEG signatures of face processing

“…Such regression-based deconvolution models are increasingly becoming popular (e.g. Coco et al, 2020; Cornelissen et al, 2019; Dandekar et al, 2012; Dimigen & Ehinger, 2021; Kristensen et al, 2017; Smith & Kutas, 2015). The adequacy of our deconvolution approach can be seen in Supplementary Figure 2, where we contrast it with a non-deconvolution analysis.…”