Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40127769›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2025

Eye-movement artifact correction in infant EEG: A systematic comparison between ICA and Artifact Blocking.

Diksha Srishyla, Sara Jane Webb, Mayada Elsabbagh, Christian O'Reilly, BASIS Team

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Diksha SrishylaMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA; Artificial Intelligence Institute, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA; Carolina Autism and Neurodevelopment Research Center, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. Electronic address: srishyla@email.sc.edu.
Sara Jane WebbCenter on Child Health, Behavior and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mayada ElsabbaghMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Christian O'ReillyMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA; Artificial Intelligence Institute, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA; Carolina Autism and Neurodevelopment Research Center, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
BASIS TeamCentre for Brain and Cognitive Development, London, UK.

Funding

UW Autism Center of ExcellenceP50HD055782 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI KING, BRYAN H · 2007 to 2011
$11.0M
Mechanisms of Brain Dysmorphology in MN1 C-Terminal Truncation Syndrome, a Novel Intellectual Developmental Disability Disorder P50HD103524 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Sandra E Juul · 2020 to 2026
$9.9M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD055782NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD103524
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndependent Component Analysis (ICA) is a well-established approach to clean EEG and remove the impact of signals of non-neural origin, such as those from muscular activity and eye movements. However, evidence suggests that ICA removes artifacts less effectively in infants than in adults. This study systematically compares ICA and Artifact Blocking (AB), an alternative approach proposed to improve eye-movement artifact correction in infant EEG.

methodsWe analyzed EEG collected from 50 infants between 6 and 18 months of age as part of the International Infant EEG Data Integration Platform (EEG-IP), a longitudinal multi-study dataset. EEG was recorded while infants sat on their caregivers' laps and watched videos. We used ICA and AB to correct for eye-movement artifacts in the EEG and calculated the proportion of effectively corrected segments, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), power-spectral density (PSD), and multiscale entropy (MSE) in manually selected EEG segments with and without eye-movement artifacts.

resultsOn the one hand, the proportion of effectively corrected segments indicated that ICA corrected eye-movement artifacts (sensitivity) better than AB. SNR and PSD indicated that both AB and ICA correct eye-movement artifacts with equal sensitivity. MSE gave mixed results. On the other hand, AB caused less distortion to the clean segments (specificity) for SNR, PSD, and MSE.

conclusionOur results suggest that ICA is more sensitive (i.e., it better removes artifacts) but less specific (it distorts clean signals) than AB for correcting eye-movement artifacts in infant EEG.

Indexed as

ArtifactsBrainElectroencephalographyEye MovementsSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansInfantMalePrincipal Component AnalysisSignal-To-Noise RatioArtifact blockingElectroencephalogramEye-movement artifactIndependent component analysisInfants

Identifiers

PMID40127769
PMCPMC12753043

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.