Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Efficient Brain Recording - Audio to EEG From: Mattson ogg <mattson.ogg@xxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:22:06 -0400--000000000000a4c9e4061c05939d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Malcolm, I had a colleague ask about a similar problem a little while ago. I think cortical responses will be hard to see in single trials so IMO the question sort of becomes =E2=80=9Chow many trial/stimulus averages do y= ou need to accumulate to see classic responses?=E2=80=9D which is probably roughly = related to whatever the SNR of your neural recorder is. ABRs are a good avenue modulo good comments about if what they reflect is what you=E2=80=99re inte= rested in. IIRC they also require averaging thousands of trials. More standard ERPs normally average 50-100, but you might be able to get away with less? Luckily I don=E2=80=99t think the stimuli need to be very long: probably a = jittered train of say 300 ms sounds (I=E2=80=99d probably go speech vowels or wide b= and noise) every second or so should do it so you can probably get a good set of trials to explore this pretty quickly. We sometimes use that =E2=80=9Cho= w many averages needed to see a classic component=E2=80=9D as an approximation of = neural SNR so you could see how many trials you need to accumulate to see something to get a more precise/efficient measure. Hope this helps! On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 12:05=E2=80=AFAM Malcolm Slaney < 000001757ffb5fe1-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is there a consensus about what is the most *efficient* way to establish > that there is an audio-brain-recording connection? By efficient I mean i= n > terms of the least amount of subject time. > > What I want to know is: how can I mostly quickly establish that we are > picking up EEG signals *due* to an audio signal? > > I suspect ABRs, since they are used in infant screening. FFRs seem > interesting because they are continuous. ERPs seem more problematic sinc= e > they often have a low repetition rate. (Acknowledging that strictly > speaking the ABR is a form of ERP.) > > Is there a written comparison? > > Thanks. > > - Malcolm > --000000000000a4c9e4061c05939d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><div><div dir=3D"auto" style=3D"font-family:-apple-system,helveticaneu= e;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;te= xt-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-= decoration:none;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);border-color:rgb(0,0,0);colo= r:rgb(0,0,0)">Hi Malcolm, I had a colleague ask about a similar problem a l= ittle while ago. I think cortical responses will be hard to see in single t= rials so IMO the question sort of becomes =E2=80=9Chow many trial/stimulus = averages do you need to accumulate to see classic responses?=E2=80=9D which= is probably roughly related to whatever the SNR of your neural recorder is= . ABRs are a good avenue modulo good comments about if what they reflect is= what you=E2=80=99re interested in. IIRC they also require averaging thousa= nds of trials. More standard ERPs normally average 50-100, but you might be= able to get away with less? Luckily I don=E2=80=99t think the stimuli need= to be very long: probably a jittered train of say 300 ms sounds (I=E2=80= =99d probably go speech vowels or wide band noise) every second or so shoul= d do it so you can probably get a good set of trials to explore this pretty= quickly. We sometimes use that =E2=80=9Chow many averages needed to see a = classic component=E2=80=9D as an approximation of neural SNR so you could s= ee how many trials you need to accumulate to see something to get a more pr= ecise/efficient measure. Hope this helps!</div><br></div><br></div><div><br= ><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, J= un 29, 2024 at 12:05=E2=80=AFAM Malcolm Slaney <<a href=3D"mailto:000001= 757ffb5fe1-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx">000001757ffb5fe1-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx= sts.mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty= le=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:soli= d;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">Is there a consensus= about what is the most *efficient* way to establish that there is an audio= -brain-recording connection?=C2=A0 By efficient I mean in terms of the leas= t amount of subject time.<br> <br> What I want to know is:=C2=A0 how can I mostly quickly establish that we ar= e picking up EEG signals *due* to an audio signal?<br> <br> I suspect ABRs, since they are used in infant screening.=C2=A0 FFRs seem in= teresting because they are continuous.=C2=A0 ERPs seem more problematic sin= ce they often have a low repetition rate.=C2=A0 (Acknowledging that strictl= y speaking the ABR is a form of ERP.)<br> <br> Is there a written comparison?<br> <br> Thanks.<br> <br> - Malcolm<br> </blockquote></div></div> --000000000000a4c9e4061c05939d--