Scaling is necessary when making comparisons between shapes of event- related potential topographies: A reply to Haig et al.

Psychophysiology

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 832-834

  Ruchkin, Daniel S ^a   Johnson Jr , Ray ^b   Friedman, David ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^c NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Event related potential; Scaling; Topography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TOPOGRAPHY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; HUMANS;

EID: 0032706338     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0048577299981106     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. Haig, A. R., Gordon, E., & Hook, S. (1997). To scale or not to scale: McCarthy and Wood revisited. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 103, 323-325.
2. Havlicek, L. L., & Peterson, N. L. (1974). Robustness of the t test: A guide for researchers on effect of violations of assumptions. Psychological Reports, 34, 1095-1114.
3. McCarthy, G., & Wood, C. C. (1985). Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 62, 203-208.