Eye-movement artifact correction in infant EEG: A systematic comparison between ICA and Artifact Blocking

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 1,790 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background Independent Component Analysis (ICA) is a well-established approach to clean EEG and remove the impact of signals of non-neural origin, such as those from muscular activity and eye movements. However, evidence suggests that ICA removes artifacts less effectively in infants than in adults. This study systematically compares ICA and Artifact Blocking (AB), an alternative approach proposed to improve eye-movement artifact correction in infant EEG.

Methods

We analyzed EEG collected from 50 infants between 6 and 18 months of age as part of the International Infant EEG Data Integration Platform (EEG-IP), a longitudinal multi-study dataset. EEG was recorded while infants sat on their caregivers’ laps and watched videos. We used ICA and AB to correct for eye-movement artifacts in the EEG and calculated the proportion of effectively corrected segments, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), power-spectral density (PSD), and multiscale entropy (MSE) in manually selected EEG segments with and without eye-movement artifacts.

Results

On the one hand, the proportion of effectively corrected segments indicated that ICA corrected eye-movement artifacts (sensitivity) better than AB. SNR and PSD indicated that both AB and ICA correct eye-movement artifacts with equal sensitivity. MSE gave mixed results. On the other hand, AB caused less distortion to the clean segments (specificity) for SNR, PSD, and MSE.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that ICA is more sensitive (i.e., it better removes artifacts) but less specific (it distorts clean signals) than AB for correcting eye-movement artifacts in infant EEG. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes Added additional figures as supplementary material and made changes to figure 6

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00