2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.09.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pre-intervention test-retest reliability of EEG and ERP over four recording intervals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

11
27
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
11
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While these results were generally 297 lower than the self-reported counterpart (in the range of .7-.8), our findings are 298 comparable, if not better, than the existing studies on the stability of ERP responses (Ip 299 et al, 2018;Segalowitz & Barnes, 1993). According to previous studies, the reliability 300 of EEG and ERP was affected by various variables, such as age of 301 participants (Alperin, Mott, Rentz, Holcomb, & Daffner, 2014), recording 302 intervals (Sandman & Patterson, 2000), state and other factors (Ip et al, 2018;303 Segalowitz & Barnes, 1993). In our study, one possible source of error may have been 304 if the EEG cap aligned slightly differently between the two data collection sessions.…”
Section: Performances 276supporting
confidence: 65%
“…While these results were generally 297 lower than the self-reported counterpart (in the range of .7-.8), our findings are 298 comparable, if not better, than the existing studies on the stability of ERP responses (Ip 299 et al, 2018;Segalowitz & Barnes, 1993). According to previous studies, the reliability 300 of EEG and ERP was affected by various variables, such as age of 301 participants (Alperin, Mott, Rentz, Holcomb, & Daffner, 2014), recording 302 intervals (Sandman & Patterson, 2000), state and other factors (Ip et al, 2018;303 Segalowitz & Barnes, 1993). In our study, one possible source of error may have been 304 if the EEG cap aligned slightly differently between the two data collection sessions.…”
Section: Performances 276supporting
confidence: 65%
“…Prior studies in healthy adults have demonstrated good to excellent test-retest reliability for certain features of the PSD. EEG power for mid-range frequencies (theta, alpha, and beta, as opposed to delta and gamma; Ip et al, 2018) and relative power (as opposed to absolute power; Salinsky et al, 1991) have shown correlation coefficients >0.8 for EEG sessions a few weeks apart; this is in the range of test-retest correlations for commonly used tests of cognitive ability (Elliott, 2007;Canivez and Watkins, 1999). Methodological advances in EEG preprocessing, such as a robust reference to average and wavelet independent component analysis which act to attenuate the effects of data collection artifact, improve test-retest reliability in higher frequency bands such as beta and gamma (Suarez-Revelo et al, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior studies in healthy adults have demonstrated good to excellent test-retest reliability for certain features of the PSD. EEG power for mid-range frequencies (theta, alpha, and beta, as opposed to delta and gamma) 9 and relative power (as opposed to absolute power) 10 have shown correlation coefficients >.8 for EEG sessions a few weeks apart; this is in the range of test-retest correlations for commonly used tests of cognitive ability. 11,12 Methodological advances in EEG pre-processing, such as robust reference to average and wavelet independent component analysis which act to attenuate the effects of data collection artifact, improve test-retest reliability in higher frequency bands such as beta and gamma.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 83%