- 1 electrode on top of the head (Cz)
- Average between electrodes on the two ears
- Average of all connected electrodes (average reference)
- Average of two mastoid references
- Single mastoid (left or right) reference
- Nose reference
Using one type of reference compared to another seems to depend on personal preference. Choosing a noisy reference means that the noise will be containing on all data channels. So what is the best reference?
Thanks,
A. Delorme
(mastoid, Cz, average reference or ears). The nose should not be used
for gamma as it is contaminated by eye tremors (see Fries, 2009 in
Neuron). Qin et al (2010, Clinical Neurophsyiology) propose a reference
free mecanism called REST and that is based on source localization. It
thus depend on the forward model you are selecting. Nunez in the same
issue provides a nice review of the ideal reference pointing out that
average reference is still considered a good compromised.
There
is also independent component analysis (ICA). ICA applied to EEG data
should be reference free. However, I have not seen it used to computing
reference free EEG. It is probably because a large number of authors
using ICA work on the component themselves rather than the data
channels.
Christian
ps: I wrote a very
long and detailed response and this web site lost it because I stayed
loged in too long (above is the summary I retyped). Beware other users.
Thanks Christian,
following up on my own thread here.
There was a related discussion of choice of reference on the
popular EEGLAB
mailing list. Some more opinions below
First an introduction
* *
*[url=http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/research/eeg/eeg_intro.html*]http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/research/eeg/eeg_intro.html*[/url]
Electric potentials are only defined with respect to a reference,
i.e. an
arbitrarily chosen "zero level". The choice of the reference
may
differ depending on the purpose of the recording. This is similar
to measures
of height, where the zero level can be at sea level for the height
of
mountains, or at ground level for the height of a building, for
example. For
each EEG recording, a "reference electrode" has to be selected
in
advance. Ideally, this electrode would be affected by global
voltage changes in
the same manner as all the other electrodes, such that brain
unspecific
activity is subtracted out by the referencing (e.g. slow voltage
shifts due to
sweating). Also, the reference should not pick up signals which are
not
intended to be recorded, like heart activity, which would be
"subtracted
in" by the referencing. In most studies, a reference on the head
but at
some distance from the other recording electrodes is chosen. Such a
reference
can be the ear-lobes, the nose, or the mastoids (i.e. the bone
behind the
ears). With multi-channel recordings (e.g. >32 channels), it is
common to
compute the "average reference", i.e. to subtract the average
over
all electrodes from each electrodes for each time point. This
distributes the
"responsibility" over all electrodes, rather than assigning it
to
only one of them. If a single reference electrode was used during
the
recording, it is always possible to re-reference the data to any of
the
recording electrodes (or combinations of them, like their average)
at a later
stage of processing. In some cases "bipolar" recordings are
carried
out, where electrode pairs are applied and referenced against each
other for
each pair (e.g. left-right symmetrical electrodes).
From Tarik Bel Abar
in my opinion, average reference is
a good bet when you have denser coverage of the head with enough
electrode density,
something like 60 and above, preferably closer to 100 and above.
But it also
depends on what reference was active during recording, depending on
the make of
your nets. For basic introductions you can check out the links to
various
resources for your education regarding
re-referencing.
0. http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/lit/Topics/Psychophysiology/CacioppoText/Ch.2.pdf
1. [PDF] from
uni-konstanz.de
2. http://www.springerlink.com/content/6785124141026861/fulltext.pdf
3. http://sccn.ucsd.edu/pipermail/eeglablist/2008/002510.html
4. [PDF] from
tu-ilmenau.de
5. http://www.springerlink.com/content/6785124141026861/
6. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1469-8986.3850847/abstract
From Stephen Politzer-Ahles
Steve Luck's book *An Introduction
to the Event-related potentials method *has a lot of information on
references
and the consequences of the reference
you choose. A common issue with average reference is that it's best
when you
have a high-density cap with many channels, so it may not be a good
reference
to use with a 19-channel dataset. (I don't know if the amount of
noise matters
particularly for reference, but I don't have any experience myself
using
average reference--since I've only worked with low-density caps,
I've never had
a chance to use average reference).
From Yin Tian
In recent years, Dr Yao designed a method to
translate the
actual recordings with an actual physical reference, such as Cz,
uni-mastoid, to the idea recordings with
reference at
Infinity (zero theoretically) (REST-- reference electrode
standardization
technique, 2001). It has been evaluated and compared with the other
common
references thoroughly. According to their detailed numeric
evaluation, in all
cases, the best one is REST (zero), then the average
reference. The linked-ears, or uni-mastord is
not
recommended. With my practice, REST does improve the data quality
in ERP and
EEG analysis. The followings are the papers showing the
details
Yao D.A method to standardize a reference of scalp
EEG
recordings to a point at infinity. Physiol Meas
2001;22:693–711.
From Joe Dien
19-channels is a bit sparse for
average reference but it also depends on how they are distributed
on the head,
not just the number. It also depends on
the ERPs you're interested. The mastoids
are definitely not electrically silent (they are located very close
to the
lateral temporal language areas). There
are also implications for statistical power of ANOVAs depending on
the geometry
of the ERP component dipolar field and the reference
site. It also depends on what kind of analyses
you
are planning on and also on how well known the ERP component is and
whether you
plan on making inferences about functional neuroanatomy, among
other
things. Regarding noise, it depends on
what kind of noise you're talking about.
Do
you mean electrode noise (bad contacts that would only affect the
one
electrode) or background noise (coherent electrical fields
influencing multiple
electrodes that just happen to not be of interest, including EOG)
or mechanical
noise (movement artifacts affecting multiple electrodes caused by
physical
disturbances of the electrodes)?
Dien, J. (1998). Issues in the
application of the average reference: Review, critiques, and
recommendations.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 30(1),
34-43.