Tutorial 6: Noise covariance matrix

The source reconstruction process requires an estimation of the noise level in the recordings. Ideally, we want to represent only the noise of the sensors, but we can also use a baseline of resting recordings. The main problem is in fact to identify segment of recordings that we can consider as "noise", or at least that do not contain any of the brain activity of interest. This tutorial shows how to compute the noise covariance matrix from the pre-stimulation baseline of the two averaged files we have in the database.

Compute from recordings

Noise covariance from another dataset

In order to get a good estimation of the noise, we need much more time samples than what we have in an averaged file. Also, the pre-stimulation baseline might not be a very good estimation of the noise of the sensors. You have several options available to get better results, by using different segments of recordings than the ones that you are analyzing.

The only constraint: you need to apply the exact same pre-processing operations to the recordings you use for the estimation of the noise covariance, and to the recordings for which you are reconstructing the sources: frequency filters, resampling, re-referencing...

Note for averaged files: If you import or compute a noise covariance matrix based on a set of RAW recordings (not averaged), and then use it to estimate sources for averaged recordings, you may have to set manually the number of trials that were used to compute the average.

Discussion

This matrix is very easy to calculate, and the Brainstorm interface offers a lot of flexibilty to use the files and time windows you want to process. The main problem about this noise covariance matrix is the difficulty to estimate what "noise" means. In your experiment, you want to use segments of recordings that contain only the noise of the sensors if possible, or segments of recordings that do not contain any of the brain signals of interest.

MEG

The MEG case is usually easier because we can have access to recordings that are real noise measurements, the MEG room just has to be empty. Record a few minutes of recordings right before bringing the subject in the MEG, or after the experiment is done. If you acquire several runs successively, or even several subjects, you can assume that the state of the sensors didn't change much. Therefore, you can re-use the same noise covariance matrix for several runs and subjects.

EEG

The EEG case is typically much more complicated. The noise level of the electrodes recordings depends primarily on the quality of the connection with the skin, which varies a lot from a subject to another, or even during the acquisition of one single subject. The conductive gel or solution used on the electrodes tends to dry, and the electrode cap can move. Therefore, it is very important to use different channel files (hence different noise covariance matrices) for each subject, and possibly to split long recordings in different runs, with different noise covariance matrices too.

Evoked responses

In the case of evoked responses (aka event-related) studies, it can be a valid approach to use the pre-stimulation baseline to estimate the noise covariance. But keep in mind that in this case, everything in your pre-stimulation baseline is going to be attenuated in the source reconstruction, noise and brain activity. Therefore, your stimuli have to be distant enough in time so that the response to a stimulus is not recorded in the "baseline" of the following one. For repetitive stimuli, randomized delays between stimuli can help avoiding expectation effects in the baseline.

Resting state

Epilepsy

Next

Next tutorial: ?source estimation.

Tutorials/TutNoiseCov (last edited 2012-12-19 17:03:27 by bas2-montreal42-3096488408)