 Research Article
 Open Access
TimeFrequency Data Reduction for Event Related Potentials: Combining Principal Component Analysis and Matching Pursuit
 Selin Aviyente^{1}Email author,
 Edward M. Bernat^{2},
 Stephen M. Malone^{3} and
 William G. Iacono^{3}
https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/289571
© Selin Aviyente et al. 2010
 Received: 2 February 2010
 Accepted: 5 May 2010
 Published: 2 June 2010
Abstract
Joint timefrequency representations offer a rich representation of event related potentials (ERPs) that cannot be obtained through individual time or frequency domain analysis. This representation, however, comes at the expense of increased data volume and the difficulty of interpreting the resulting representations. Therefore, methods that can reduce the large amount of timefrequency data to experimentally relevant components are essential. In this paper, we present a method that reduces the large volume of ERP timefrequency data into a few significant timefrequency parameters. The proposed method is based on applying the widely used matching pursuit (MP) approach, with a Gabor dictionary, to principal components extracted from the timefrequency domain. The proposed PCAGabor decomposition is compared with other timefrequency data reduction methods such as the timefrequency PCA approach alone and standard matching pursuit methods using a Gabor dictionary for both simulated and biological data. The results show that the proposed PCAGabor approach performs better than either the PCA alone or the standard MP data reduction methods, by using the smallest amount of ERP data variance to produce the strongest statistical separation between experimental conditions.
Keywords
 Independent Component Analysis
 Nonnegative Matrix Factorization
 Match Pursuit
 Orthogonal Match Pursuit
 Data Reduction Method
1. Introduction
Eventrelated potential (ERP) signals measured at the scalp are produced by partial synchronization of neuronal field potentials across the cortex [1]. This synchronization mediates the "topdown" and "bottomup" communication both within and between brain areas and has particular importance during the anticipation of and attention to stimuli or events. Event related potentials (ERPs) are obtained by averaging EEG signals recorded over multiple trials or epochs timelocked to the particular stimulus. ERP signal analysis has proven to be effective in assessing the brain's current functional state and reflect many pathological processes (e.g., [2–6]).
Typically, ERP analysis is performed in the time domain, where the amplitudes and latencies of prominent peaks in the averaged potentials are usually measured and correlated with information processing mechanisms. However, this conventional approach has two major shortcomings. First, it is wellknown that ERPs are transient and nonstationary signals. Second, ERPs generally contain multiple overlapping processes operating across different time and frequency ranges. A primary approach to this problem has been to utilize timefrequency signal representations to detect transient activity and to disentangle overlapping processes. Several methods exist to fulfill this goal including wavelet and wavelet packet decomposition [7–11], sparse signal representations using overcomplete dictionaries (such as matching pursuit [12, 13] and basis pursuit [14]), Cohen's class of timefrequency distributions [15, 16], and the recently introduced high resolution timefrequency distributions [17–20].
Wavelet transforms have been successfully applied to the analysis of evoked potentials in a variety of studies [4, 7, 21]. They have been shown to be advantageous over the Fourier transform, since the time varying frequency information can be observed. However, wavelets have wellknown limitations in terms of timefrequency resolution tradeoff, that is, at high frequencies, the temporal resolution is high whereas the frequency resolution is low and vice versa for low frequencies. Sparse representations such as matching pursuit and basis pursuit aim to find a "best" fit to the given signal in terms of the elements of a redundant family of functions, called the dictionary [12, 13]. The "best" fit to the given signal is quantified through both the mean square error between the representation and the actual signal and the sparseness of the representation, that is, the number of elements of the dictionary used in the representation should be minimal. This approach has the advantage of offering a fully quantitative description of the ERPs by parameterizing the timefrequency plane at the expense of being computationally expensive. Cohen's class of distributions provides advantages over the other timefrequency representations in that it accurately characterizes the physical timefrequency properties of a signal, for example, energy and marginals, and yields uniformly high resolution over the entire timefrequency plane [15, 22]. Recently, timefrequency distributions with improved resolution and concentration around the instantaneous frequency have been introduced such as the reassigned timefrequency representations, higher order polynomial distributions, and complexlag distributions [17, 20, 23]. Although these methods improve the resolution of the representations, they come at the expense of increased computational complexity and in some cases losing some of the desirable properties such as the marginals. Moreover, these distributions have been shown to be the most effective for polynomial phase signals whereas ERPs have been shown to be well represented by damped sinusoids [24], thus the improvement provided by these more complex distributions would be minimal. For these reasons, in this paper we will focus on the Cohen's class of distributions, in particular the Reduced Interference Distributions.
The high resolution provided by Cohen's class of timefrequency distributions come at the expense of increased data. The application of these distributions to large sets of ERP data has tended to rely on a timefrequency region of interest (TFROI; region of interest on the TF surface) to define activity for evaluation. Therefore, there is a growing need for data reduction and feature extraction methods for reducing the three dimensional timefrequency surfaces of ERPs to a few parameters. The problem of feature extraction and data reduction has been traditionally addressed using parametric and nonparametric methods. Parametric approaches include sparse representations using overcomplete dictionaries [12–14, 25–28], extraction of features from the timefrequency distributions such as the energy in different frequency bands, computation of higher order joint moments [29, 30], and entropy [31]. Nonparametric data reduction methods, on the other hand, include datadriven multivariate component analysis such as the application of matrix factorization methods to timefrequency distributions. These methods include the nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) [32–34], singular value decomposition (SVD) [35], independent component analysis (ICA) [1, 36], and principal component analysis (PCA) [37–40] to extract timefrequency features for classification purposes or for reducing the timefrequency surfaces to a few meaningful components. The application of the matrix factorization approaches have been mostly limited to decomposing a single timefrequency matrix into significant time and frequency components to reduce the dimensionality and extract features for consequent classification [34, 39]. However, in ERP analysis there is a need for multivariate processing, that is, it is important to extract components that describe a collection of signals, such as those collected over multiple channels or multiple subjects. The principal component analysis of timefrequency vectors representing multiple subjects described in [37, 41] addresses this issue by extracting timefrequency principal components over a collection of ERP waveforms. At this point, it is also important to motivate the use of PCA over other data factorization methods. PCA is a multivariate technique that seeks to uncover latent variables responsible for patterns of covariation in the data set and has been used widely for time domain ERP data description and reduction [42, 43]. It is commonly applied to the covariance of the data matrix and is thus similar to SVD in the extracted components. PCA does not make any strong assumptions about the data, unlike NMF which imposes nonnegativeness, with the only assumption being that the observations are linear functions of the extracted components which is a common assumption in ERP analysis. ICA has been proposed as a promising alternative to PCA for ERP data reduction [1, 36]. However, recent comparisons of PCA with ICA for ERP data analysis indicates that ICA suffers from the component "splitting" problem, that is, components that should not be separated are split into multiple components, and that it is more suitable for spatial decompositions rather than temporal ones [44, 45]. Further, ICA has been most commonly applied to timedomain ERP signal representations, and its use with timefrequency ERP representations has not been wellvalidated. For these reasons, in the current paper we use PCA as the first step in our data reduction algorithm.
In this paper, we address the data extraction and reduction problem in the timefrequency plane by combining parametric and nonparametric methods in a nonstationary setting. The ultimate goal is to find timefrequency components that are common to a large set of ERP data and that can summarize the relevant activity in terms of a few parameters. We introduce a new data reduction method based on applying matching pursuit decomposition to the timefrequency domain principal components to further reduce the information from the principal components and to fully quantify the timefrequency parameters of ERPs. Since the principal components extracted from ERP timefrequency surfaces are welllocalized in time and frequency, we propose quantifying them in terms of wellknown compact signals, Gabor logons (in this paper, "Gabor logons" and "logons" will be used interchangeably), on the timefrequency plane. Even though there are various choices for the basis functions that can be used to decompose a given signal, in this paper Gabor logons are chosen for representing timefrequency structure of ERP signals for two major reasons. First, it is known that these functions achieve the lower bound of the uncertainty principle (timebandwidth product) and have been described as the "elementary signals" on the timefrequency plane [22, 46]. Second, the parameters of the Gabor logons are wellsuited for identifying between transient versus oscillatory brain activity as well as separating between overlapping timefrequency events with varying duration or frequency oscillation. They have been widely used in timefrequency representation of ERP signals [47–49], in particular EEG phenomena including sleep spindles [13, 50] and epileptic seizures [51]. An algorithm similar to matching pursuit is developed in the timefrequency plane to determine the best set of logons that describe each ERP timefrequency principal component [12]. Fitting Gabor logons to the extracted principal components offers three potential benefits. First, decomposing the principal components (PCs) into a few logons would capture the major activity described by that principal component while at the same time serve as a tool of denoising, that is, removing the unwanted noise or activity that may exist in the principal component. Second, insofar as a single logon can characterize the primary activity in the experimental manipulations for each principal component, this would offer evidence that the principal components approach is efficient at extracting compact timefrequency representations. Finally, the extracted logons offer an important unit of analysis in their own right, in that they are maximally compact by definition. The proposed methods are compared to both parametric and nonparametric data reduction methods in the timefrequency plane, namely, the standard matching pursuit algorithm [12, 52] and PCA in terms of efficiency, computational complexity and the effectiveness in describing the experimental effects in the data. To evaluate these methods, we employ both biological [41] and simulated data [37], that have been previously evaluated using the PCA on the timefrequency plane approach.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives a brief review of timefrequency distributions and various matching pursuit approaches. Section 3 introduces the data reduction method proposed in this paper, combining principal component analysis with matching pursuit on the timefrequency plane. Section 4 details the data analyzed in this paper and presents the results of applying the proposed method to both simulated data and ERP signals. A comparison with different timefrequency data reduction methods is also given in this section. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper and discusses the major contributions.
2. Background
2.1. TimeFrequency Distributions
where is the kernel function in the ambiguity domain ( ), is the signal, and and are the time and the frequency variables, respectively. Some of the most desired properties of TFDs are the energy preservation, the marginals, and the reduced interference. For bilinear timefrequency distributions, crossterms occur when the signal is multicomponent, that is, if then , where and refer to the autoterms and crossterms, respectively. The crossterms will introduce timefrequency structures that do not correspond to the timefrequency spectrum of the actual signal. For this reason, in this paper we will use reduced interference distributions (RIDs) that concentrate the energy across the autoterms, satisfy the energy preservation and the marginals [53].
2.2. Matching Pursuit
 (1)
Define the 0th order residual as , and set .
 (2)
 (4)Set , , and go back to step 2 until a predetermined stopping criterion is achieved. The stopping criterion can either be a preselected number of atoms to describe the signal or a percentage of energy of the original signal described by the selected atoms. After iterations, the following linear representation is obtained:
This procedure converges to in the limit, that is, , and preserves signal energy.
2.3. Simultaneous Matching Pursuit
 (1)
Define for each signal the 0th order residual as and set , .
 (2)
 (4)Set , , and go back to step 2 until a predetermined stopping criterion is achieved. The stopping criterion can either be a preselected number of atoms to describe the collection of signals or an average percentage of energy of the original signals described by the selected atoms. After iterations, the following linear representation is obtained for each signal:
3. PCAGabor Method
Ideally, a timefrequency domain ERP data reduction method will faithfully reproduce established time and frequencybased findings (i.e., peaks in the time domain such as P300 or summaries of frequency activity such as alpha), and also allow a more complex view of these phenomena using the joint timefrequency information available in the TFDs. The decomposition method used in this paper is based on two stages of consecutive data reduction. The first stage is a direct extension of PCA into the joint timefrequency domain and the second stage is the parametrization of the timefrequency principal components using a matching pursuit type algorithm.
3.1. PCA on the TimeFrequency Plane
 (1)where is the discretetime kernel in the time and timelag domain and is the th ERP waveform. In this paper, the binomial kernel, given by
is used as the timefrequency kernel.
 (2)
 (3)
Compute the covariance matrix, .
 (4)
where is the eigenvalue of each principal component . The principal components determine the span of the timefrequency space.
 (5)
Rotate the principal components using varimax rotation [57]. Varimax rotation is an orthogonal transform that rotates the principal components such that the variance of the factors is maximized. This rotation improves the interpretability of the principal components.
 (6)
Rearrange each principal component into a timefrequency surface to obtain the ERP components in the timefrequency domain.
After the principal components on the timefrequency plane are extracted, they are ordered based on their eigenvalues and the most significant ones are used in the following parametrization stage. The number of principal components to keep is determined based on a normalized energy threshold.
3.2. Matching Pursuit on the TimeFrequency Plane
In this section, we introduce a matching pursuit type algorithm in the timefrequency domain to further parameterize the ERP timefrequency surfaces. The goal is to be able to describe the principal components using a compact set of timefrequency parameters using Gabor logons as the dictionary elements. The proposed algorithm is similar to the original matching pursuit [12] and the discrete Gabor decomposition [58], except that it is directly implemented in the timefrequency domain rather than in the time domain. This implementation is preferred over the standard MP for two reasons. First, the principal components are already in the timefrequency domain, and inverting them back to the time domain would increase the computational complexity. Second, this offers a way of directly modeling the timefrequency energy distribution.
An overcomplete dictionary of Gabor logons on the timefrequency plane is constructed by computing the timefrequency distribution of discrete time atoms where is the scale parameter, and are the discrete time and frequency shift parameters, respectively, and is the total number of frequency samples. The elements of the dictionary, , are the binomial TFDs of these atoms, . The number of elements in the dictionary are determined by the range of , and . In this paper, , where is the total number of time samples, , where is the total number of frequency samples, and .
 (1)
Initialize the residue as and set and .
 (2)
 (4)
 (5)
Increment by 1, set .
 (6)
NMSE is a measure of how close the approximation from the dictionary is to the original timefrequency distribution. Since the mean square error is normalized by the energy of the original TFD, it is always between 0 and 1.
4. Simulated and Biological Data Analysis
4.1. Description of Biological Data
The biological data used in this paper has been previously presented utilizing PCA on the timefrequency plane approach, and thus we will only detail the relevant parameters here. The reader is directed to the previously published paper for greater detail [41]. The sample consisted of twins in the Minnesota Twin Family Study (MTFS), a longitudinal and epidemiological investigation of the origins and development of substance use disorders and related psychopathology. All male and female twin participants for whom ERP data were available from the study's psychophysiological assessment served as subjects for this investigation. This sample combined subjects from the two age cohorts of the MTFS. Subjects in one cohort were 17 years old at intake whereas subjects in the other were approximately 11 years old at intake. Data for this younger cohort came from a followup assessment conducted when subjects were approximately 17 years old. The sample thus comprised 2,068 17yearold adolescents in all (mean age = 17.7; SD = 0.5; range = 16.7 to 20.0).
A visual oddball task was used. Each of the 240 stimuli comprising this task was presented on a computer screen for 98 ms, with the intertrial interval (ITI) varying randomly between 1 and 2 s. A small dot, upon which subjects were instructed to fixate, appeared in the center of the screen during the ITI. On twothirds of the trials, participants saw a plain oval to which they were instructed not to respond. On the remaining third of the trials, participants saw a superior view of a stylized head, depicting the nose and one ear. These stylized heads served as "target" stimuli. Participants were instructed to press one of two response buttons attached to each arm of their chair to indicate whether the ear was on the left side of the head or the right. Half of these target trials consisted of heads with the nose pointed up, such that the left ear would be on the left side of the head as it appeared to the subject (easy discrimination). Half consisted of heads rotated 180 degrees so that the nose pointed down, such that the left ear would appear on the right side of the screen and the right ear would appear on the left side of the ear (hard discrimination).
For each trial, 2 s of EEG, including a 500 ms prestimulus baseline, were collected at a sampling rate of 256 Hz. EEG data were recorded from three parietal scalp locations, one on the midline (Pz) and one over each hemisphere (P3 and P4). Consistent with the previous report, only data from the Pz electrode is reported here. Similarly, although ERPs to standard (frequent) stimuli were collected, they were not analyzed for the current paper; target condition responses serve as the basis for all decompositions and analyses presented. Therefore, the analysis in this paper focuses on data reduction for ERPs collected across multiple subjects from a single channel. However, the methods developed can easily be extended to single subject and/or multiple channel data.
Principal component decompositions were employed to evaluate the proposed approach. For the purposes of this study, decompositions for conditionaveraged data were conducted on narrow time and frequency ranges, to focus on lower frequency delta and theta activity. Conditionaveraged ERPs were constructed separately for easy and hard discrimination conditions. These included frequencies ranging from 0 to 5.75 Hz and time ranging from stimulus onset to 1000 ms poststimulus. The range was narrowed to focus on the timefrequency range containing the majority of variance: theta, delta, and low frequency activity.
4.2. Description of Simulated Data
Two simulated datasets were employed in the current paper. As with the biological data, these datasets were employed previously with PCA approach alone [37]. Briefly, the two sets included are 3logons and 3logons with noise. All simulated sets were 100 Hz sampled signals of 1000 ms, with the first and last 100 ms discarded after the TFD is computed to remove edge effects. The first simulated dataset contains 3 logons with clearly separated time and frequency centers: 30 Hz/100 ms, 20 Hz/400 ms, and 10 Hz/700 ms. For 3logons with noise, noise was added at the 4 dB signal to noise level. In all simulations, each signal entered was assigned to a different simulated topographical region, to simulate the activity from different brain areas. To accomplish this, the signals were divided into 63 simulated channels creating a grid within which differential weightings could be applied. Each signal entered, that is, each logon, was weighted by a grid differentially located within the overall grid. The differential loadings were implemented to simulate a signal with more focal activity that decays in topographic space. The simulated datasets each contained 7560 total waveforms, comprised of 120 trials by 63 electrodes.
4.3. Results
In this section, we will present the results of applying the PCAGabor method on both simulated data and ERP signals described above. In the PCAGabor analysis, we will focus on extracting the "best" logon fit to the principal component surface. Extracting the "best" logon offers a way of parameterizing the PCs using the time, frequency and scale parameters of the logon as well as serving as a denoising tool since the "best" logon will focus on representing the actual signal energy as opposed to background noise. Through this analysis, we will show the effectiveness of the PCAGabor method both as a modeling/data reduction tool and a denoising tool. The proposed method also offers an alternative to previous ERP studies that use matching pursuit to decompose each signal individually [13]. This analysis has the disadvantage of being computationally expensive and extracting a large number of logons to represent a collection of signals. Since a comparison between matching pursuit at the individual signal level and the PCAGabor method would not be helpful due the number of logons extracted being much larger for the MP, we compare the PCAGabor method to the simultaneous matching pursuit with Gabor dictionary (SMPGabor) and to previous results obtained by the PCA method on the timefrequency plane [37].
4.3.1. Analysis of Simulated Data
The comparison of the variance explained by the PCA, PCAGabor, and SMPGabor for two simulated datsets: 3logons and 3logons in noise.
Data Set  PCA  PCAGabor  SMPGabor 

3 Logons  99.97%  95.73%  95.73% 
3 Logons in Noise  81.38%  90.78%  38.20% 
For 3logons in 4 dB noise, similarly, three components were extracted by each of the algorithms, that is, three PCs with PCA, three logons fitted to the PCs with PCAGabor, and three logons fitted to the whole dataset with SMPGabor. The extracted components were evaluated in terms of the amount of signal variance they captured by projecting the components onto the original 3logon dataset. From Table 1, it can be seen that PCAGabor captures the most amount of signal variance with PCA coming in second. The logons extracted from the SMPGabor method can only explain of the total signal variance since the algorithm focuses on extracting components that capture the most amount of common variance in the data (whereas PCA is covariancebased), which in this case corresponds to noise. Figure 1 illustrates how the logons extracted by SMPGabor become wider in time and less correlated with the actual logons for the noisy data. This figure also shows that PCAGabor acts as a denoising mechanism reducing the noise in the PCs and thus representing more of the signal.
4.3.2. Analysis of Biological Data
For the biological data, first we will compare the variance characterized using the different approaches. We extract 11 PCs using PCA, the 11 logons extracted from these PCs using PCAGabor, and 11 logons that best explain the energy of the whole dataset using the SMPGabor method. Once the different components are extracted, they are projected onto each of the 8328 conditionaveraged ERP waveforms. For the three methods compared in this paper, PCA, PCAGabor and SMPGabor, PCA explained most of the data variance with 91%. For SMPGabor, the variance explained was 81% whereas for PCAGabor it was 70%.
Partial etasquared ( ) values from a repeatedmeasures general linear model (GLM) for the three methods for ERP analysis. Multivariate tests indicate statistical values across all components. Note: * , ** , and * .
Factors  Sex  RT  Difficulty 

Multivariate PCA  .102***  .105***  .088*** 
Multivariate PCAGabor  .105***  .109***  .091*** 
Multivariate SMPGabor  .086***  .104***  .084*** 
By comparing the data reduction methods in terms of both overall data variance as well as experimentally relevant variance, stronger inferences can be made about how well the methods perform. In particular, the PCAGabor method captured the largest amount of experimentally relevant variance, while using the least amount of overall data variance. This is analogous to the results of the simulated data with noise, where the PCAGabor method extracted the most signal power in terms of experimentally relevant variance, while excluding the largest amount of noise power in terms of experimentally irrelevant variance. Thus, in these terms, the PCAGabor method was the most optimal among the three methods.
Finally, it is important to compare the different approaches in terms of computational complexity. All of the algorithms are run on a PC with Pentium 4 processor at 2 GHz using MATLAB 7.0, and evaluated after generating the timefrequency surfaces. The PCAGabor method took 11.6 seconds including the time to find the principal components (3.2 seconds) and to search for the best logon fit for the resulting PCs (8.4 seconds). The simultaneous matching pursuit on the other hand took 1276 seconds. Thus, in terms of computational complexity, PCA approach was the fastest, followed closely by the PCAGabor method. Trailing by a large margin is the SMPGabor method, which was computationally expensive due to the core search algorithm required.
A qualitative comparison of the three data reduction methods discussed in this paper.
Method/Properties  Data dependent  TimeFrequency Parametrization  Computation time  Variance versus Covariance 

PCA  Yes  No  3.2 sec  Covariance 
PCAGabor  Yes  Yes  11.6 sec  Covariance 
SMPGabor  No  Yes  1276 sec  Variance 
4.4. Discussions
The parameters (time center (samples), , frequency center (Hz), , and scale parameter ) of the 11 logons extracted by PCAGabor from the 11 PCs, SMPGabor from the 8238 TFD surfaces, and MPGabor from the grand average of the 8238 timefrequency surfaces.
PCAGabor  SMPGabor  Grand averageGabor  

Logon number 









1  6  4.3128  1  15  1.265  8  15  1.265  8 
2  7  1.4376  4  12  1.9837  8  12  1.955  8 
3  16  0.9584  8  19  0.7188  16  19  0.7188  16 
4  11  2.8752  1  12  2.7312  2  12  2.875  8 
5  13  3.5940  1  27  1.4375  8  29  1.2363  4 
6  5  3.3544  1  10  1.61  4  9  1.4375  4 
7  14  2.1564  2  8  2.53  2  6  4.1113  1 
8  8  2.3960  2  15  2.7025  1  12  4.1113  1 
9  27  1.4376  8  19  1.9837  2  14  0.3738  8 
10  23  1.9168  2  6  3.7950  1  19  2.3288  2 
11  19  1.4376  4  9  3.5938  1  3  1.9837  4 
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a timefrequency data reduction method combining a nonparametric datadriven approach, principal component analysis, with a parametric approach, matching pursuit with a Gabor dictionary, was presented. Using the proposed method, it was possible to characterize large amounts of ERP data with a small number of timefrequency parameters. This joint application of PCA with Gabor decomposition offered several advantages over individual PCA and Gabor decomposition. First, compared to PCA the proposed method improves the SNR of the extracted components, that is, performs denoising, while simultaneously parameterizing the timefrequency surfaces and offering a succinct representation of the data set. Second, the application of Gabor decomposition onto the principal components instead of the actual data helps to extract parameters that represent the covariation among observations rather than characterize the average energy across observations. This property of PCAGabor becomes especially important when there is considerable noise in the data since standard matching pursuit algorithms will focus on fitting parameters to capture the most amount of energy, which in this case may be noise components. This phenomenon exhibited itself in the analysis of the biological data as PCAGabor most effectively differentiated between the experimental conditions with the least amount of data variance, or in other words capturing the least amount of noise, compared to the other two methods. This was mainly because the extracted logons explained the main effects described by the principal components with higher signaltonoise ratio (most experimentally relevant variance).
Future work will focus on the extensions of the proposed methods to different data factorization approaches such as the ICA. For ERP data collected over multiple channels, spatial ICA may be used as an alternative to PCA and the proposed data reduction method can be applied onto the independent components. Future work will also evaluate the Gabor parameters in relation to wellknown cognitive ERP events such as P300, as well as ERP events with known specific neurological origins, such as anterior cingulate cortex activation as measured in the errorrelated negativity (ERN) paradigm.
Declarations
Acknowledgments
This work was in part supported by Grants from the National Science Foundation under CAREER CCF0746971, National Institutes of Health NIDA13240, NIDA05147, NIDA024417, NIAA09367, and K08MH080239.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Makeig S, Debener S, Onton J, Delorme A: Mining eventrelated brain dynamics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8(5):204210. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.008View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shevrin H, Bond JA, Brakel LA, Hertel RK, Williams WJ: Conscious and Unconscious Processes: Psychodynamic, Cognitive and Neurophysiological Convergences. Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA; 1996.Google Scholar
 Shevrin H, Williams WJ, Marshall RE, Hertel RK, Bond JA, Brakel LA: Eventrelated potential indicators of the dynamic unconscious. Consciousness and Cognition 1992, 1(3):340366. 10.1016/10538100(92)90068LView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Başar E: EEGBrain Dynamics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 1980.Google Scholar
 Sclabassi RJ, Sun M, Krieger DN, Jasiukaitis P, Scher MS: Timefrequency domain problems in the neurosciences. In TimeFrequency Signal Analysis: Methods and Applications. Edited by: Boashash B. Longman, Harlow, UK; 1992:498519.Google Scholar
 Williams WJ, Zaveri HP, Sackellares JC: Timefrequency analysis of electrophysiology signals in epilepsy. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 1995, 14(2):133143. 10.1109/51.376750View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Demiralp T, Yordanova J, Kolev V, Ademoglu A, Devrim M, Samar VJ: Timefrequency analysis of singlesweep eventrelated potentials by means of fast wavelet transform. Brain and Language 1999, 66(1):129145. 10.1006/brln.1998.2028View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Raz J, Dickerson L, Turetsky B: A wavelet packet model of evoked potentials. Brain and Language 1999, 66(1):6188. 10.1006/brln.1998.2025View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Samar VJ, Raghuveer MR, Swartz KP, Rosenberg S, Chaiyaboonthanit T: Wavelet decomposition of event related potentials: toward the definition of biologically natural components. Proceedings of the 6th IEEE Conference on Statistical Signal and Array Processing, 1992 3841.Google Scholar
 Herrmann CS, Grigutsch M, Busch NA: EEG Oscillations and Wavelet Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA; 2005.Google Scholar
 Cranstoun SD, Ombao HC, Von Sachs R, Guo W, Litt B: Timefrequency spectral estimation of multichannel EEG using the autoSLEX method. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 2002, 49(9):988996. 10.1109/TBME.2002.802015View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Mallat SG, Zhang Z: Matching pursuits with timefrequency dictionaries. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 1993, 41(12):33973415. 10.1109/78.258082View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Durka PJ, Blinowska KJ: A unified timefrequency parametrization of EEGs. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 2001, 20(5):4753. 10.1109/51.956819View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chen SS, Donoho DL, Saunders MA: Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. SIAM Journal of Scientific Computing 1999, 20(1):3361.MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Williams WJ: Reduced interference distributions: biological applications and interpretations. Proceedings of the IEEE 1996, 84(9):12641280. 10.1109/5.535245View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Haykin S, Racine RJ, Yan XU, Chapman CA: Monitoring neuronal oscillations and signal transmission between cortical regions using timefrequency analysis of electroencephalographic activity. Proceedings of the IEEE 1996, 84(9):12951301. 10.1109/5.535247View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shafi I, Ahmad J, Shah SI, Kashif FM: Techniques to obtain good resolution and concentrated timefrequency distributions: a review. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing 2009, 2009:43.Google Scholar
 Shafi I, Ahmad J, Shah SI, Kashif FM: Computing deblurred timefrequency distributions using artificial neural networks. Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing 2008, 27(3):277294. 10.1007/s000340089027xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shafi I, Ahmad J, Shah SI, Kashif FM: Evolutionary timefrequency distributions using Bayesian regularised neural network model. IET Signal Processing 2007, 1(2):97106. 10.1049/ietspr:20060311View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Orović I, Stanković S: A class of highly concentrated timefrequency distributions based on the ambiguity domain representation and complexlag moment. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing 2009, 2009:9.Google Scholar
 Demiralp T, Ademoglu A, Comerchero M, Polich J: Wavelet analysis of P3a and P3b. Brain Topography 2001, 13(4):251267. 10.1023/A:1011102628306View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Cohen L: TimeFrequency Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA; 1995.Google Scholar
 Jachan M, Matz G, Hlawatsch F: Timefrequency ARMA models and parameter estimators for underspread nonstationary random processes. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 2007, 55(9):43664381.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Demiralp T, Ademoglu A, Istefanopulos Y, Gülçür HÖ: Analysis of eventrelated potentials (ERP) by damped sinusoids. Biological Cybernetics 1998, 78(6):487493. 10.1007/s004220050452View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Tropp JA: Greed is good: algorithmic results for sparse approximation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 2004, 50(10):22312242. 10.1109/TIT.2004.834793MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Gribonval R: Fast matching pursuit with a multiscale dictionary of Gaussian chirps. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 2001, 49(5):9941001. 10.1109/78.917803MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Donoho DL, Huo X: Uncertainty principles and ideal atomic decomposition. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 2001, 47(7):28452862. 10.1109/18.959265MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Gorodnitsky IF, Rao BD: Sparse signal reconstruction from limited data using FOCUSS: a reweighted minimum norm algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 1997, 45(3):600616. 10.1109/78.558475View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Tacer B, Loughlin PJ: Nonstationary signal classification using the joint moments of timefrequency distributions. Pattern Recognition 1998, 31(11):16351641. 10.1016/S00313203(98)000314View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Krishnan S, Rangayyan RM, Bell GD, Frank CB: Adaptive timefrequency analysis of knee joint vibroarthrographic signals for noninvasive screening of articular cartilage pathology. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 2000, 47(6):773783. 10.1109/10.844228View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Baraniuk RG, Flandrin P, Janssen AJEM, Michel OJJ: Measuring timefrequency information content using the Rényi entropies. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 2001, 47(4):13911409. 10.1109/18.923723MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Lee H, Cichocki A, Choi S: Nonnegative matrix factorization for motor imagery EEG classification. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2006, 4132: 250259. 10.1007/11840930_26View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Mørup M, Hansen LK, Arnfred SM: ERPWAVELAB: a toolbox for multichannel analysis of timefrequency transformed event related potentials. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2007, 161(2):361368. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.008View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ghoraani B, Krishnan S: A joint timefrequency and matrix decomposition feature extraction methodology for pathological voice classification. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing 2009, 2009:11.Google Scholar
 Hassanpour H, Mesbah M, Boashash B: Timefrequency feature extraction of newborn EEC seizure using SVDbased techniques. EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing 2004, 2004(16):25442554. 10.1155/S1110865704406167View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Jung TP, Makeig S, Westerfield M, Townsend J, Courchesne E, Sejnowski TJ: Analysis and visualization of singletrial eventrelated potentials. Human Brain Mapping 2001, 14(3):166185. 10.1002/hbm.1050View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Bernat EM, Williams WJ, Gehring WJ: Decomposing ERP timefrequency energy using PCA. Clinical Neurophysiology 2005, 116(6):13141334. 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.01.019View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Mayhew SD, Dirckx SG, Niazy RK, Iannetti GD, Wise RG: EEG signatures of auditory activity correlate with simultaneously recorded fMRI responses in humans. NeuroImage 2010, 49(1):849864. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.080View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Englehart K, Hudgins B, Parker PA, Stevenson M: Classification of the myoelectric signal using timefrequency based representations. Medical Engineering and Physics 1999, 21(67):431438. 10.1016/S13504533(99)000661View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Iordanidou V, Michalopoulos K, Sakkalis V, Zervakis M: Decomposition methods for detailed analysis of content in ERP recordings. In Artificial Neural Networks–ICANN, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Volume 5769. Springer, Berlin, Germany; 2009:368377.Google Scholar
 Bernat EM, Malone SM, Williams WJ, Patrick CJ, Iacono WG: Decomposing delta, theta, and alpha timefrequency ERP activity from a visual oddball task using PCA. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2007, 64(1):6274. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.07.015View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Dien J, Spencer KM, Donchin E: Localization of the eventrelated potential novelty response as defined by principal components analysis. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 17(3):637650. 10.1016/S09266410(03)001885View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Spencer KM, Dien J, Donchin E: Spatiotemporal analysis of the late ERP responses to deviant stimuli. Psychophysiology 2001, 38(2):343358. 10.1111/14698986.3820343View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Dien J, Khoe W, Mangun GR: Evaluation of PCA and ICA of simulated ERPs: promax vs. infomax rotations. Human Brain Mapping 2007, 28(8):742763. 10.1002/hbm.20304View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Dien J: Evaluating twostep PCA of ERP data with geomin, infomax, oblimin, promax, and varimax rotations. Psychophysiology 2010, 47(1):170183. 10.1111/j.14698986.2009.00885.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gabor D: Theory of communication. Journal of IEE 1946, 93: 429457.Google Scholar
 Brown ML, Williams WJ, Hero AO III: Nonorthogonal Gabor representation of eventrelated potentials. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, October 1993 314315.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zhang ZG, Yang JL, Chan SC, Luk KDK, Hu Y: Timefrequency component analysis of somatosensory evoked potentials in rats. BioMedical Engineering Online 2009., 8(1, article 4):Google Scholar
 Bénar CG, Papadopoulo T, Torrésani B, Clerc M: Consensus matching pursuit for multitrial EEG signals. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2009, 180(1):161170. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2009.03.005View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Schönwald SV, Gerhardt GJL, de SantaHelena EL, Chaves MALF: Characteristics of human EEG sleep spindles assessed by Gabor transform. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 2003, 327(12):180184. 10.1016/S03784371(03)004734View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Jouny CC, Franaszczuk PJ, Bergey GK: Characterization of epileptic seizure dynamics using Gabor atom density. Clinical Neurophysiology 2003, 114(3):426437. 10.1016/S13882457(02)003449View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gribonval R: Piecewise linear source separation. Wavelets: Applications in Signal and Image Processing X, August 2003, San Diego, Calif, USA, Proceedings of SPIE 5207: 297310.Google Scholar
 Jeong J, Williams WJ: Kernel design for reduced interference distributions. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 1992, 40(2):402412. 10.1109/78.124950View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Tropp JA, Gilbert AC, Strauss MJ: Algorithms for simultaneous sparse approximation. Part I: greedy pursuit. Signal Processing 2006, 86(3):572588. 10.1016/j.sigpro.2005.05.030View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Krstulović S, Gribonval R: MPTK: matching pursuit made tractable. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP '06), May 2006 3: 496499.Google Scholar
 Studer D, Hoffmann U, Koenig T: From EEG dependency multichannel matching pursuit to sparse topographic EEG decomposition. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 2006, 153(2):261275. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.11.006View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Kaiser HF: The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 1958, 23(3):187200. 10.1007/BF02289233View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Qian S, Chen D: Discrete Gabor transform. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 1993, 41(7):24292438. 10.1109/78.224251View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Pati YC, Rezaiifar R, Krishnaprasad PS: Orthogonal matching pursuit: recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition. Proceedings of the 27th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, 1993 1: 4044.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.