We've found a robust difference between two conditions around 50 ms post-stimulus in ERPs (visual task). The difference is apparent both in component peak amplitudes, in point-by-point tests and in gfp based statistics, but source estimation (SE) seems to be very tricky for this. Do you know of any studies that dealt with the localization difficulty of early ERPs? Did you find SE of early ERPs more difficult than later ones?
Dear Ágoston.
I know the only team in Russia - the team of Prof. A. Ya. Kaplan -
that investigates ERPs in all spects . The site of this team is
http://brain.bio.msu.ru/
where you can find a lot of materials about P300 and early ERPs.
I guess that it is the best academic resource in Russia.
Best regards
V.Antciperov
Hi Agoston,
you seem to be dealing with something similar to a nice C1-component and I would be interested to read more about your condition, eliciting those stable early differences.
A while ago, my colleagues and I looked at the C1, source estimation was not our primary focus, but you might find the paper (and those cited or citing it) helpful, see here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7611298_Modulation_of_the_C1_visual_event-related_component_by_conditioned_stimuli_Evidence_for_sensory_plasticity_in_early_affective_perception
The sources of this and similar early visual components, even thought tricky to find, are much more focused than of later components. The C1 for example has a very clear and quite distinct surface-topography, it is thought to originate (of course) in V1, but it is kind of hidden a little to the side and within the left and right primary visual cortices.
Hope this helps, best, Margarita
Article Modulation of the C1 Visual Event-related Component by Condi...
there was an interesting study back 3 years ago by Ch. Papadelis et al. where they were able to dipole localize the pre-stim activity and track the thalamocortical propagation this way. Neuroimage 60 (2012) 1092-1105
Dear all, First of all, thank you for your answers. @Margarita it could be indeed a C1 (presumably) for background (no figure) differences, but because the difference is not visual (it was spatial) I cannot say automatically that it is V1. Luckily you research comes very useful for that, because there the investigated difference was not visual too. @Alexei The method of the study you mentioned is extremely interesting, however a 64 channel EEG setup didn't give the quality of 300+ channel MEG setup. It would be cool though to repeat our experiement in a MEG design later! For those, who find this topic later, I would suggest the seminal paper of Di Russo et al, 2002, Human Brain Mapping (link see below)
http://www-cogsci.ucsd.edu/~sereno/papers/CortSourceVEP02.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic