Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields II: Simulation studies

Psychophysiology

Volumn 48, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1726-1737

  Groppe, David M ^a   Urbach, Thomas P ^a   Kutas, Marta ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

EEG ERP; False discovery rate; Hypothesis testing; MEG; Permutation test

Indexed keywords

EID: 80755188974     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: 14698986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01272.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57, 289-300.
2. Benjamini, Y., Krieger, A. M., & Yekutieli, D. (2006). Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika, 93, 491-507. doi: DOI: 10.1093/biomet/93.3.491.
3. Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics, 29, 1165-1188.
4. Bentin, S., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M. H., Echallier, J. F., & Pernier, J. (1999). ERP manifestations of processing printed words at different psycholinguistic levels: Time course and scalp distribution. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 235-260. doi: DOI: 10.1162/089892999563373.
5. Blair, R. C., & Karniski, W. (1993). An alternative method for significance testing of waveform difference potentials. Psychophysiology, 30, 518-524. doi: DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb02075.x.
6. Bullmore, E. T., Suckling, J., Overmeyer, S., Rabe-Hesketh, S., Taylor, E., & Brammer, M. J. (1999). Global, voxel, and cluster tests, by theory and permutation, for a difference between two groups of structural MR images of the brain. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 18, 32-42. doi: DOI: 10.1109/42.750253.
7. Clarke, S., & Hall, P. (2009). Robustness of multiple testing procedures against dependence. The Annals of Statistics, 37, 332-358. doi: DOI: 10.1214/07-AOS557.
8. Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9-21. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009.
9. Efron, B. (2004). Large-scale simultaneous hypothesis testing: The choice of a null hypothesis. Journal of American Statistical Association, 99, 96-104. doi: DOI: 10.1198/016214504000000089.
10. Groppe, D. M., Choi, M., Topkins, B., & Kutas, M. (2009). An event-related potential investigation of the phonemic restoration effect. Cognitive Neuroscience Society Annual Meeting Program, San Francisco, CA. 156.
11. Groppe, D. M., Choi, M., Huang, T., Schilz, J., Topkins, B., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2010). The phonemic restoration effect reveals pre-N400 effect of supportive sentence context in speech perception. Brain Research, 1361, 54-66. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.09.003.
12. Groppe, D. M., Urbach, T. U., & Kutas, M. (2011). Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology. doi: DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01273.x.
13. Hemmelmann, C., Horn, M., Reiterer, S., Schack, B., Susse, T., & Weiss, S. (2004). Multivariate tests for the evaluation of high-dimensional EEG data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 139, 111-120. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2004.04.013.
14. Hemmelmann, C., Horn, M., Susse, T., Vollandt, R., & Weiss, S. (2005). New concepts of multiple tests and their use for evaluating high-dimensional EEG data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 142, 209-217. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2004.08.008.
15. Hillyard, S. A., Hink, R. F., Schwent, V. L., & Picton, T. W. (1973). Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science, 182, 177-180. doi: DOI: 10.1126/science.182.4108.177.
16. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65-70.
17. Johnson, J. S., & Olshausen, B. A. (2003). Timecourse of neural signatures of object recognition. Journal of Vision, 3, 499-512, doi: DOI: 10:1167/3.7.4.
18. Kim, K. I., & van de Wiel, M. A. (2008). Effects of dependence in high-dimensional multiple testing problems. BMC Bioinformatics, 9, 114. doi: DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-114.
19. Korn, E. L., Troendle, J. F., McShane, L. M., & Simon, R. (2004). Controlling the number of false discoveries: Application to high-dimensional genomic data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 124, 379-398. doi: DOI: 10.1016/S0378-3758(03)00211-8.
20. Lage-Castellanos, A., Martinez-Montes, E., Hernandez-Cabrera, J. A., & Galan, L. (2010). False discovery rate and permutation test: An evaluation in ERP data analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 29, 63-74. doi: DOI: 10.1002/sim.3784.
21. Lee, T. W., Girolami, M., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1999). Independent component analysis using an extended infomax algorithm for mixed subgaussian and supergaussian sources. Neural Computation, 11, 417-441, doi: DOI: 10.1162/089976699300016719.
22. Luck, S. J. (2005). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 164, 177-190. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024.
24. Murphy, B. P. (1967). Some two-sample tests when the variances are unequal: A simulation study. Biometrika, 54, 679-683.
25. Naatanen, R., & Winkler, I. (1999). The concept of auditory stimulus representation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 826-859. doi: DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.826.
26. Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., & Schoffelen, J. M. (2011). FieldTrip: Open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2011, 156869. doi: DOI: 10.1155/2011/156869