Library Subscription: Guest
Begell Digital Portal Begell Digital Library eBooks Journals References & Proceedings Research Collections
Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering
SJR: 0.243 SNIP: 0.376 CiteScore™: 0.79

ISSN Print: 0278-940X
ISSN Online: 1943-619X

Critical Reviews™ in Biomedical Engineering

DOI: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.2014011220
pages 95-107

Ballistocardiogram Correction in Simultaneous EEG/ fMRI Recordings: A Comparison of Average Artifact Subtraction and Optimal Basis Set Methods Using Two Popular Software Tools

Amabilis H. Harrison
McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study (MiNDS), McMaster School of Biomedical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Michael D. Noseworthy
McMaster School of Biomedical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Imaging Research Centre, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
James P. Reilly
McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study (MiNDS), Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
John F. Connolly
McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study (MiNDS), McMaster School of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Linguistics and Languages, McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT

Electroencephalography data recorded during functional magnetic resonance imaging acquisition are subject to large cardiac-related artifacts that must be corrected during postprocessing. This study compared two widely used ballistocardiogram (BCG) correction algorithms as implemented in two software programs. Reduction of BCG amplitude, correlation of corrected data with electrocardiogram traces, correlation of independent components with electrocardiogram traces, and event-related potential signal-to-noise ratio from each algorithm were compared. Both algorithms effectively reduced the BCG artifact, with a slight advantage of average artifact subtraction over the optimal basis set method (0.1−2.2%) when the quality of the correction was examined at the individual subject level. This study provides users of these software tools with an important, practical, and previously unavailable comparison of the performance of these two methods.