• Please log in or register to access this feature.

Original Article

How does noise affect amplitude and latency measurement of event-related potentials (ERPs)? A methodological critique and simulation study

  1. Peter E. Clayson1,
  2. Scott A. Baldwin2,
  3. Michael J. Larson2,3,*

Article first published online: 6 DEC 2012

DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12001

Issue

Psychophysiology

Psychophysiology

Volume 50, Issue 2, pages 174–186, February 2013

Additional Information

How to Cite

Clayson, P. E., Baldwin, S. A. and Larson, M. J. (2013), How does noise affect amplitude and latency measurement of event-related potentials (ERPs)? A methodological critique and simulation study. Psychophysiology, 50: 174–186. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12001

Author Information

  1. 1

    Department of Psychology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA

  2. 2

    Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

  3. 3

    Neuroscience Center, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

*Address correspondence to: Michael J. Larson, PhD, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience Center, Brigham Young University, 244 TLRB, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: michael_larson@byu.edu

  1. We gratefully acknowledge the help of Christina Catron and Rochelle Jones for their assistance in data coding.

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 7 JAN 2013
  2. Article first published online: 6 DEC 2012
  3. Manuscript Accepted: 25 OCT 2012
  4. Manuscript Received: 25 MAY 2012

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (891K)

Keywords:

  • Event-related potentials (ERPs);
  • Amplitude;
  • Latency;
  • Statistical extraction;
  • Measurement;
  • Simulation

Abstract

There is considerable variability in the quantification of event-related potential (ERP) amplitudes and latencies. We examined susceptibility of ERP quantification measures to incremental increases in background noise through published ERP data and simulations. Measures included mean amplitude, adaptive mean, peak amplitude, peak latency, and centroid latency. Results indicated mean amplitude was the most robust against increases in background noise. The adaptive mean measure was more biased, but represented an efficient estimator of the true ERP signal particularly for individual-subject latency variability. Strong evidence is provided against using peak amplitude. For latency measures, the peak latency measure was less biased and less efficient than the centroid latency measurement. Results emphasize the prudence in reporting the number of trials retained for averaging as well as noise estimates for groups and conditions when comparing ERPs.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (891K)