Validity ty of spectral analysis of evoked potentials in brain research

Kramarenko, Alexander and TAN, UNER (2002) Validity ty of spectral analysis of evoked potentials in brain research. [Journal (Paginated)]

Full text available as:

[img] PDF


The averaged electronencephologram (EEG) response of the brain to an external stimulus (evoked potential, EP) is usually subjected to spectral analysis using the fast Fourier transform (FFT), especially to discover the relation of cognitive ability to so-called brain dynamics. There is indeed a discrepancy between these two systems, because the brain is a highly complex nonlinear system, analyzed by a linear system (FFT). We present in this work some inaccuracies that occurred when EPs are subjected to spectral analysis, using a model signal. First of all, the EP power spectra depended upon the number of samples used for averaging; the input EP (model signal) and the output EP (from the system) seemed to be similar in forms, but they exhibited completely different spectral power curves. It was concluded that the spectral analysis of evoked responses by using FFT (linear system analysis) in relation to brain (highly complex nonlinear system) may mislead neuroscientists.

Item Type:Journal (Paginated)
Keywords:brain, cognition, evoked potential, nonlinear system, spectral analysis, method
Subjects:Neuroscience > Behavioral Neuroscience
Neuroscience > Computational Neuroscience
Neuroscience > Neurophysiology
ID Code:2197
Deposited By: Tan, Uner
Deposited On:04 May 2002
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:54

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Basar, E., Basar-Eroglu, C., Karaks, S., Schurman, M.

(1999a). Neuroscience Letters, 259, 165-168.

Basar, E., Demiralp, T., Schurman, M., Basar-Eroglu, C.

(1999b). Brain and Language, 66, 146-183.

Basar, E., Schurmann, M., & Sakowitz, O. (2001).

International Journal of Psychophysiology, 39, 197-212.

Connolly, J.F. (2000). Brain and Cognition, 42, 99-101.

Freeman, W. J. (1995). Trends in Neurosciences, 18, 429-436.

Jervis, B.W., Coelho, M., &Morgan, G.Q. (1989).

Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing,27,230-238.

Jervis, B.W., Nichols, M.J., Johnson, T.E., Allen, E.M.,

& Hudson, N.R. (1983). IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical

Engineering, 30, 43-50.

Karakas, S., & Basar, E. (1993). International Journal of

Neuroscience, 19, 161-172.

Khachunts, A.S., Vaganyan, L.G., Tatevosyan, N.E.,

Tatevosyan, I.G., Kostanyan, E.G. (2001). Human

Physiology, 27, 585-590.

Melancon, G., & Joanette, Y. (2000). Brain and Cognition,

42, 33-36.

Quiroga, R.Q., Sakowitz, O.W., Basar, E., Schurmann, M.

(2001). Brain Research Protocols, 8, 16-24.

Reinvang, I. (1999). Neuropsychology Review, 9,231-248.

Segalowitz, S.J. (2000). Brain and Cognition, 42, 163-165.

Srinivasan, R., Tucker, D.M., & Murias, M. (1998).

Instruments & Computers, 30, 8-19.


Repository Staff Only: item control page