BackgroundTo probe the functional role of brain oscillations, transcranial alternating current stimulation has proven to be a useful neuroscientific tool. Because of the excessive tACS-caused artifact at the stimulation frequency in electroencephalography signals, tACS + EEG studies have been mostly limited to compare brain activity between recordings before and after concurrent tACS. Critically, attempts to suppress the artifact in the data cannot assure that the entire artifact is removed while brain activity is preserved. The current study aims to evaluate the feasibility of specific artifact correction techniques to clean tACS-contaminated EEG data.New MethodIn the first experiment, we used a phantom head to have full control over the signal to be analyzed. Driving pre-recorded human brain-oscillation signals through a dipolar current source within the phantom, we simultaneously applied tACS and compared the performance of different artifact-correction techniques: sine subtraction, template subtraction, and signal-space projection. In the second experiment, we combined tACS and EEG on one human subject to demonstrate the best-performing data-correction approach in a proof of principle.ResultsThe tACS artifact was highly attenuated by SSP in the phantom and the human EEG; thus, we were able to recover the amplitude and phase of the oscillatory activity. In the human experiment, event-related desynchronization could be restored after correcting the artifact.Comparison With Existing MethodsThe best results were achieved with SSP, which outperformed sine subtraction and template subtraction.ConclusionOur results demonstrate the feasibility of SSP by applying it to a phantom measurement with pre-recorded signal and one human tACS + EEG dataset. For a full validation of SSP, more data are needed.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2020.536070
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 57,041
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Law is an Institution an Artifact and a Practice.Kenneth M. Ehrenberg - 2018 - In Luka Burazin, Kenneth Einar Himma & Corrado Roversi (eds.), Law as an Artifact. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 177-191.
The Problem of Phantom Functions.Sune Holm - 2017 - Erkenntnis 82 (1):233-241.
Artifact Categorization. Trends and Problems.Massimiliano Carrara & Daria Mingardo - 2013 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4 (3):351-373.
Anomaly Versus Artifact, or Anomalous Artifact?Marcello Truzzi - 1987 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10 (4):614.
Can There Be an Artifact Theory of Law?Luka Burazin - 2016 - Ratio Juris 29 (3):385-401.


Added to PP index

Total views

Recent downloads (6 months)

How can I increase my downloads?


Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes