Dealing with ocular artifacts on lateralized ERPs in studies of visual‐spatial attention and memory: ICA correction versus epoch rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to assess the robustness and reliability of independent component analysis (ICA) as a method for ocular artifact correction in electrophysiological studies of visual-spatial attention and memory. The N2pc and sustained posterior contralateral negativity (SPCN), electrophysiological markers of visual-spatial attention and memory, respectively, are lateralized posterior ERPs typically observed following the presentation of lateral stimuli (targets and distractors) along with instructions to maintain fixation on the center of the visual search for the entire trial. Traditionally, trials in which subjects may have displaced their gaze are rejected based on a cutoff threshold, minimizing electrophysiological contamination by saccades. Given the loss of data resulting from rejection, we examined ocular correction by comparing results using standard fixation instructions against a condition where subjects were instructed to shift their gaze toward possible targets. Both conditions were analyzed using a rejection threshold and ICA correction for saccade activity management. Results demonstrate that ICA conserves data that would have otherwise been removed and leaves the underlying neural activity intact, as demonstrated by experimental manipulations previously shown to modulate the N2pc and the SPCN. Not only does ICA salvage and not distort data, but also large eye movements had only subtle effects. Overall, the findings provide convincing evidence for ICA correction for not only special cases (e.g., subjects did not follow fixation instruction) but also as a candidate for standard ocular artifact management in electrophysiological studies interested in visual-spatial attention and memory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".