Parametric vs. Non-Parametric Statistics of Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA)

This study compared the relative statistical sensitivity of non-parametric and parametric statistics of 3-dimensional current sources as estimated by the EEG inverse solution Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA). One would expect approximately 5% false positives (classification of a no...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical EEG and neuroscience 2005-01, Vol.36 (1), p.1-8
Hauptverfasser: Thatcher, R. W., North, D., Biver, C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 8
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Clinical EEG and neuroscience
container_volume 36
creator Thatcher, R. W.
North, D.
Biver, C.
description This study compared the relative statistical sensitivity of non-parametric and parametric statistics of 3-dimensional current sources as estimated by the EEG inverse solution Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA). One would expect approximately 5% false positives (classification of a normal as abnormal) at the P < .025 level of probability (two tailed test) and approximately 1% false positives at the P < .005 level. EEG digital samples (2 second intervals sampled 128 Hz, 1 to 2 minutes eyes closed) from 43 normal adult subjects were imported into the Key Institute's LORETA program. We then used the Key Institute's cross-spectrum and the Key Institute's LORETA output files (*.lor) as the 2,394 gray matter pixel representation of 3-dimensional currents at different frequencies. The mean and standard deviation *.lor files were computed for each of the 2,394 gray matter pixels for each of the 43 subjects. Tests of Gaussianity and different transforms were computed in order to best approximate a normal distribution for each frequency and gray matter pixel. The relative sensitivity of parametric vs. non-parametric statistics were compared using a “leave-one-out” cross validation method in which individual normal subjects were withdrawn and then statistically classified as being either normal or abnormal based on the remaining subjects. Log10 transforms approximated Gaussian distribution in the range of 95% to 99% accuracy. Parametric Z score tests at P < .05 cross-validation demonstrated an average misclassification rate of approximately 4.25%, and range over the 2,394 gray matter pixels was 27.66% to 0.11%. At P < .01 parametric Z score cross-validation false positives were 0.26% and ranged from 6.65% to 0% false positives. The non-parametric Key Institute's t-max statistic at P < .05 had an average misclassification error rate of 7.64% and ranged from 43.37% to 0.04% false positives. The non-parametric t-max at P < .01 had an average misclassification rate of 6.67% and ranged from 41.34% to 0% false positives of the 2,394 gray matter pixels for any cross-validated normal subject. In conclusion, adequate approximation to Gaussian distribution and high cross-validation can be achieved by the Key Institute's LORETA programs by using a log10 transform and parametric statistics, and parametric normative comparisons had lower false positive rates than the non-parametric tests.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/155005940503600103
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67389491</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_155005940503600103</sage_id><sourcerecordid>67389491</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-e90b24752fda3cc8dafa756d1ca1382b9b0542a903730b04666cfdf477e0ba793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90F1LwzAUBuAgis7pH_BCiheiF3UnSZM0lyLzA4YTnbeWNE1npW1mkir793ZsoCh4FTg85z3hRegIwwXGQowwYwBMJsCAcgAMdAsNCOYyZgTINhqsQLwSe2jf-zfoGaHJLtrDjKcUSzxALw_KqcYEV-now19E97aNf4yeggqVD5X2kS2jif2MHo23dRcq20bj2ujgbKPmrelJNLONnTu1eF1GZ5Pp43h2eX6AdkpVe3O4eYfo-Xo8u7qNJ9Obu6vLSawpT0NsJOQkEYyUhaJap4UqlWC8wFphmpJc5sASoiRQQSGHhHOuy6JMhDCQKyHpEJ2ucxfOvnfGh6ypvDZ1rVpjO59xQVOZSNzDk1_wzXau7f-WEeAUM0h5j8gaaWe9d6bMFq5qlFtmGLJV9dnf6vul401ylzem-F7ZdN2D0Rp4NTffZ_-J_ALVooqY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>206315086</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Parametric vs. Non-Parametric Statistics of Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA)</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Thatcher, R. W. ; North, D. ; Biver, C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Thatcher, R. W. ; North, D. ; Biver, C.</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[This study compared the relative statistical sensitivity of non-parametric and parametric statistics of 3-dimensional current sources as estimated by the EEG inverse solution Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA). One would expect approximately 5% false positives (classification of a normal as abnormal) at the P < .025 level of probability (two tailed test) and approximately 1% false positives at the P < .005 level. EEG digital samples (2 second intervals sampled 128 Hz, 1 to 2 minutes eyes closed) from 43 normal adult subjects were imported into the Key Institute's LORETA program. We then used the Key Institute's cross-spectrum and the Key Institute's LORETA output files (*.lor) as the 2,394 gray matter pixel representation of 3-dimensional currents at different frequencies. The mean and standard deviation *.lor files were computed for each of the 2,394 gray matter pixels for each of the 43 subjects. Tests of Gaussianity and different transforms were computed in order to best approximate a normal distribution for each frequency and gray matter pixel. The relative sensitivity of parametric vs. non-parametric statistics were compared using a “leave-one-out” cross validation method in which individual normal subjects were withdrawn and then statistically classified as being either normal or abnormal based on the remaining subjects. Log10 transforms approximated Gaussian distribution in the range of 95% to 99% accuracy. Parametric Z score tests at P < .05 cross-validation demonstrated an average misclassification rate of approximately 4.25%, and range over the 2,394 gray matter pixels was 27.66% to 0.11%. At P < .01 parametric Z score cross-validation false positives were 0.26% and ranged from 6.65% to 0% false positives. The non-parametric Key Institute's t-max statistic at P < .05 had an average misclassification error rate of 7.64% and ranged from 43.37% to 0.04% false positives. The non-parametric t-max at P < .01 had an average misclassification rate of 6.67% and ranged from 41.34% to 0% false positives of the 2,394 gray matter pixels for any cross-validated normal subject. In conclusion, adequate approximation to Gaussian distribution and high cross-validation can be achieved by the Key Institute's LORETA programs by using a log10 transform and parametric statistics, and parametric normative comparisons had lower false positive rates than the non-parametric tests.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 1550-0594</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-5202</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/155005940503600103</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15683191</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Electroencephalography ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Normal Distribution ; Statistics as Topic ; Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><ispartof>Clinical EEG and neuroscience, 2005-01, Vol.36 (1), p.1-8</ispartof><rights>2005 EEG and Clinical Neuroscience Society</rights><rights>Copyright EEG and Clinical Neuroscience Society (ECNS) Jan 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-e90b24752fda3cc8dafa756d1ca1382b9b0542a903730b04666cfdf477e0ba793</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-e90b24752fda3cc8dafa756d1ca1382b9b0542a903730b04666cfdf477e0ba793</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/206315086/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/206315086?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21369,21799,27903,27904,33509,33510,43600,43601,43638,64361,64363,64365,72215,73850</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15683191$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thatcher, R. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>North, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Biver, C.</creatorcontrib><title>Parametric vs. Non-Parametric Statistics of Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA)</title><title>Clinical EEG and neuroscience</title><addtitle>Clin EEG Neurosci</addtitle><description><![CDATA[This study compared the relative statistical sensitivity of non-parametric and parametric statistics of 3-dimensional current sources as estimated by the EEG inverse solution Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA). One would expect approximately 5% false positives (classification of a normal as abnormal) at the P < .025 level of probability (two tailed test) and approximately 1% false positives at the P < .005 level. EEG digital samples (2 second intervals sampled 128 Hz, 1 to 2 minutes eyes closed) from 43 normal adult subjects were imported into the Key Institute's LORETA program. We then used the Key Institute's cross-spectrum and the Key Institute's LORETA output files (*.lor) as the 2,394 gray matter pixel representation of 3-dimensional currents at different frequencies. The mean and standard deviation *.lor files were computed for each of the 2,394 gray matter pixels for each of the 43 subjects. Tests of Gaussianity and different transforms were computed in order to best approximate a normal distribution for each frequency and gray matter pixel. The relative sensitivity of parametric vs. non-parametric statistics were compared using a “leave-one-out” cross validation method in which individual normal subjects were withdrawn and then statistically classified as being either normal or abnormal based on the remaining subjects. Log10 transforms approximated Gaussian distribution in the range of 95% to 99% accuracy. Parametric Z score tests at P < .05 cross-validation demonstrated an average misclassification rate of approximately 4.25%, and range over the 2,394 gray matter pixels was 27.66% to 0.11%. At P < .01 parametric Z score cross-validation false positives were 0.26% and ranged from 6.65% to 0% false positives. The non-parametric Key Institute's t-max statistic at P < .05 had an average misclassification error rate of 7.64% and ranged from 43.37% to 0.04% false positives. The non-parametric t-max at P < .01 had an average misclassification rate of 6.67% and ranged from 41.34% to 0% false positives of the 2,394 gray matter pixels for any cross-validated normal subject. In conclusion, adequate approximation to Gaussian distribution and high cross-validation can be achieved by the Key Institute's LORETA programs by using a log10 transform and parametric statistics, and parametric normative comparisons had lower false positive rates than the non-parametric tests.]]></description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Electroencephalography</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Normal Distribution</subject><subject>Statistics as Topic</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><issn>1550-0594</issn><issn>2169-5202</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp90F1LwzAUBuAgis7pH_BCiheiF3UnSZM0lyLzA4YTnbeWNE1npW1mkir793ZsoCh4FTg85z3hRegIwwXGQowwYwBMJsCAcgAMdAsNCOYyZgTINhqsQLwSe2jf-zfoGaHJLtrDjKcUSzxALw_KqcYEV-now19E97aNf4yeggqVD5X2kS2jif2MHo23dRcq20bj2ujgbKPmrelJNLONnTu1eF1GZ5Pp43h2eX6AdkpVe3O4eYfo-Xo8u7qNJ9Obu6vLSawpT0NsJOQkEYyUhaJap4UqlWC8wFphmpJc5sASoiRQQSGHhHOuy6JMhDCQKyHpEJ2ucxfOvnfGh6ypvDZ1rVpjO59xQVOZSNzDk1_wzXau7f-WEeAUM0h5j8gaaWe9d6bMFq5qlFtmGLJV9dnf6vul401ylzem-F7ZdN2D0Rp4NTffZ_-J_ALVooqY</recordid><startdate>200501</startdate><enddate>200501</enddate><creator>Thatcher, R. W.</creator><creator>North, D.</creator><creator>Biver, C.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200501</creationdate><title>Parametric vs. Non-Parametric Statistics of Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA)</title><author>Thatcher, R. W. ; North, D. ; Biver, C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-e90b24752fda3cc8dafa756d1ca1382b9b0542a903730b04666cfdf477e0ba793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Electroencephalography</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Normal Distribution</topic><topic>Statistics as Topic</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thatcher, R. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>North, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Biver, C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical EEG and neuroscience</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thatcher, R. W.</au><au>North, D.</au><au>Biver, C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Parametric vs. Non-Parametric Statistics of Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA)</atitle><jtitle>Clinical EEG and neuroscience</jtitle><addtitle>Clin EEG Neurosci</addtitle><date>2005-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>8</epage><pages>1-8</pages><issn>1550-0594</issn><eissn>2169-5202</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[This study compared the relative statistical sensitivity of non-parametric and parametric statistics of 3-dimensional current sources as estimated by the EEG inverse solution Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA). One would expect approximately 5% false positives (classification of a normal as abnormal) at the P < .025 level of probability (two tailed test) and approximately 1% false positives at the P < .005 level. EEG digital samples (2 second intervals sampled 128 Hz, 1 to 2 minutes eyes closed) from 43 normal adult subjects were imported into the Key Institute's LORETA program. We then used the Key Institute's cross-spectrum and the Key Institute's LORETA output files (*.lor) as the 2,394 gray matter pixel representation of 3-dimensional currents at different frequencies. The mean and standard deviation *.lor files were computed for each of the 2,394 gray matter pixels for each of the 43 subjects. Tests of Gaussianity and different transforms were computed in order to best approximate a normal distribution for each frequency and gray matter pixel. The relative sensitivity of parametric vs. non-parametric statistics were compared using a “leave-one-out” cross validation method in which individual normal subjects were withdrawn and then statistically classified as being either normal or abnormal based on the remaining subjects. Log10 transforms approximated Gaussian distribution in the range of 95% to 99% accuracy. Parametric Z score tests at P < .05 cross-validation demonstrated an average misclassification rate of approximately 4.25%, and range over the 2,394 gray matter pixels was 27.66% to 0.11%. At P < .01 parametric Z score cross-validation false positives were 0.26% and ranged from 6.65% to 0% false positives. The non-parametric Key Institute's t-max statistic at P < .05 had an average misclassification error rate of 7.64% and ranged from 43.37% to 0.04% false positives. The non-parametric t-max at P < .01 had an average misclassification rate of 6.67% and ranged from 41.34% to 0% false positives of the 2,394 gray matter pixels for any cross-validated normal subject. In conclusion, adequate approximation to Gaussian distribution and high cross-validation can be achieved by the Key Institute's LORETA programs by using a log10 transform and parametric statistics, and parametric normative comparisons had lower false positive rates than the non-parametric tests.]]></abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>15683191</pmid><doi>10.1177/155005940503600103</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1550-0594
ispartof Clinical EEG and neuroscience, 2005-01, Vol.36 (1), p.1-8
issn 1550-0594
2169-5202
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67389491
source MEDLINE; ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition); SAGE Complete A-Z List; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Electroencephalography
Female
Humans
Male
Normal Distribution
Statistics as Topic
Statistics, Nonparametric
title Parametric vs. Non-Parametric Statistics of Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography (LORETA)
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T08%3A51%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Parametric%20vs.%20Non-Parametric%20Statistics%20of%20Low%20Resolution%20Electromagnetic%20Tomography%20(LORETA)&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20EEG%20and%20neuroscience&rft.au=Thatcher,%20R.%20W.&rft.date=2005-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=8&rft.pages=1-8&rft.issn=1550-0594&rft.eissn=2169-5202&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/155005940503600103&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67389491%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=206315086&rft_id=info:pmid/15683191&rft_sage_id=10.1177_155005940503600103&rfr_iscdi=true