Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 38 references

Enhanced average for event-related potential analysis using dynamic time warping

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a filtered dynamic-time-warping average of EEG trials recovers ERP component amplitude lost to latency jitter, yielding larger P200 peaks and lower trial-to-average error than conventional averaging.

desk verdict A workmanlike DTW-based ERP averaging variant with a real held-out split, but internal-fit metrics and missing baselines mean the central claim needs more evidence before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13172 v1 pith:MQA6FOIV submitted 2024-11-20 eess.SP

Mario Molina , Lorenzo J. Tardon , Ana M. Barbancho , Irene De-Torres , Isabel Barbancho This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SP
keywords event-relatedpotentialselectroencephalographydynamictimewarpinglatencyjitterERPaveragingP200componentbrain-computerinterfacesignalalignment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Event-related potentials (ERPs) are usually extracted by averaging many EEG trials time-locked to a stimulus, but trial-to-trial differences in latency, jitter, and amplitude blur the average and shrink its peaks. This paper proposes a modified dynamic time warping (DTW) procedure that warps each trial toward the conventional average, restricts the warping path so signals are not arbitrarily lengthened, low-pass filters the warped trials, and then re-averages them. The paper reports that the resulting filtered DTW-based average reduces attenuation of ERP components, giving P200 median peak and amplitude about 26% and 29% larger than conventional averaging on the main public EEG dataset used, together with smaller RMS and maximum-absolute-difference distances between individual trials and the average. A sympathetic reader would care because cleaner averages could support more reliable ERP measurements in brain-computer interfaces and clinical evaluations, where amplitude and latency of components such as P200 or P300 are interpreted as neural markers.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a modified dynamic time warping (DTW) scheme used to align each single trial $s_t[n]$ to the conventional average $r[n]$ taken as reference. The local cost matrix uses the absolute difference $C_t(i,j)=|r[i]-s_t[j]|$, and the optimal warping path is found under conventional monotonicity and endpoint constraints; then the path is restricted by removing the steps that do not advance the reference index, so the reconstructed signal is no longer than the reference, and any residual length difference is padded by repeating the last sample. A Kaiser-window low-pass FIR filter with cutoff at the original signal's maximum frequency is applied to each warped trial to suppress the high-frequency artefacts introduced by the warping, and the filtered warped trials are averaged: $r_f[n]=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^T s_t^f[n]$. This restricted-path step is what distinguishes the scheme from ordinary DTW and what makes the averaged output defined at the same length as the reference.

What would settle it

Run the method on simulated EEG trials with a known ground-truth ERP embedded in noise with controlled latency jitter, and compare the filtered DTW-based average against the true signal: if the enhanced average does not recover the true amplitude and latency at least as accurately as conventional averaging (or if it shows a systematic bias toward the template), the central claim falls. A second, cheaper check is to apply the same scheme to pure noise trials with no ERP; if it still produces larger 'peaks' and smaller RMS distances, the metrics are not evidence of a better neural estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the proposed filtered DTW-based averaging scheme lessens the influence of latency jitter and jitter on averaged ERPs, reducing the attenuation of component amplitudes and yielding an averaged waveform that is closer, by RMS and MAD measures, to the individual trials. On the main EEG dataset the P200 median peak and amplitude of the filtered DTW-based average are 26.44% and 29.30% larger than the conventional average, while the coefficient of variation of peak and amplitude is smaller; similar qualitative behaviour holds for other channels, modalities, and categories analysed. The authors also show that the approach transfers to a classification setting, where signal models built from filtered DTW-based averages give slightly higher accuracy (59.52% versus 58.30%) than conventional averaging in a linear SVM task on slow cortical potentials from healthy and ALS subjects.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that smaller distances between individual trials and an average, and larger P200 peaks, actually mean the enhanced average is closer to the true neural response — otherwise the method could simply be aligning noise and inflating peaks relative to a blurred template.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the main EEG dataset, the filtered DTW-based average yields P200 median peak and amplitude roughly 26% and 29% larger than the conventional average, indicating that the attenuation caused by jitter is partially recovered.
  • RMS and MAD distances between individual trials and the average are consistently smaller for the DTW-based and filtered DTW-based averages than for the conventional average, across the channels, modalities, and categories tested.
  • The reduced coefficient of variation of P200 peak and amplitude under the filtered DTW-based scheme suggests the enhanced average is more stable across cross-validation folds.
  • In a simple linear-SVM classification task on slow cortical potentials of healthy and ALS subjects, models built from filtered DTW-based averages outperform conventional-average models (59.52% vs 58.30% accuracy).
  • The qualitative behaviour of the scheme appears robust to sampling rate, since RMS comparisons at 500 Hz, 250 Hz, and 175 Hz show the same ordering among the three averaging methods.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's quantitative case rests on internal-fit metrics: if a warped average is evaluated by how close it is to the (possibly blurred) template average from which the warping was derived, part of the reported improvement is a circularity. A direct test would compare the enhanced average against a known ground-truth ERP in simulated data with controlled jitter.
  • Because the method uses the conventional average as the initial template, it inherits any bias of that template; iterating the warping-and-averaging procedure with the filtered DTW average as the new reference could either sharpen the estimate further or amplify artefacts.
  • The same alignment-plus-filter strategy could be applied to other time-locked neurophysiological signals, such as local field potentials or MEG, and to later components like P300, where latency jitter is known to be larger.
  • The classification gain is small and on a single dataset; a larger, multi-subject BCI study would clarify whether the sharper models translate into practically meaningful improvements in brain-computer interface performance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a modified dynamic time warping (DTW) procedure for ERP averaging. Each single trial is warped to the conventional trial average r[n] via a DTW path with a restricted step set; time steps that do not advance the reference index are removed so that the warped trial has the same duration as the reference, and a Kaiser-window low-pass filter is applied to suppress spurious high-frequency components introduced by the warping. The filtered warped trials are averaged to form the proposed 'filtered DTW-based average' r_f[n]. The scheme is evaluated on the Simanova EEG dataset using RMS and MAD distances between held-out trials (subset S2) and the three averages built from subset S1 (Eqs. (4)-(5)), P200 delay/peak/amplitude measured under 10-fold cross-validation (Table 1), and a four-class linear SVM classification example on the Birbaumer slow-cortical-potential dataset (Table 2). The authors report consistently smaller RMS/MAD distances for the DTW-based averages, P200 median peak and amplitude about 26% and 29% larger for the filtered DTW-based average than for the conventional average, and a small classification accuracy gain (59.52% vs. 58.30%). The central claim is that the scheme reduces the amplitude attenuation caused by latency jitter and thus improves the averaged ERP waveform.

Significance. If the claimed effect is genuine, the proposed scheme would be a practical, low-complexity extension of conventional ERP averaging: it uses publicly available datasets, the S1/S2 and 10-fold cross-validation designs go beyond purely in-sample reporting, the sampling-rate sensitivity check (Fig. 10) is a sensible robustness probe, and the equal-length reconstruction addresses a known obstacle to DTW-based averaging [31]. However, the validated significance is limited. The quantitative evidence is internal-fit: smaller trial-to-average RMS/MAD and larger P200 amplitude are both consequences one would expect from template-guided warping even if the true neural response were unchanged, so the headline claim needs a ground-truth simulation or an external criterion. The paper also does not benchmark against the closest prior jitter-correction methods that it cites (Woody [19], Wang [17], Casarotto [21], Kotas [22]), and the reported gains in Tables 1 and 2 are not tested for statistical significance. These gaps are fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.4–§4.1, Eqs. (1)–(5), Table 1] The quantitative case for the central claim rests entirely on internal-fit metrics: RMS/MAD distances between individual trials and the averages (Eqs. (4)–(5); Figs. 8–9) and the P200 peak and amplitude of the average (Table 1). These metrics are co-defined by the alignment procedure: each trial is warped toward the conventional average r[n] (Eq. (1)), and the re-averaged signal r_f[n] (Eq. (3)) is therefore closer in shape to the trials and exhibits sharper peaks at the component latencies present in r[n]. The reported P200 median peak and amplitude gains of 26.44% and 29.30% (Section 4.1) are exactly what a template-guided warp would produce when the template contains a P200 feature, irrespective of whether any true neural signal is recovered; the same mechanism can amplify features that in r[n] originate from S1 noise. The paper's own conclusion (Section 5) acknowledges that further analysis of the 'gain in peak and amplitude values of ERP waves' is needed. To separate the claimed jitter-compensation effect from this template bias, the authors should add a ground-truth simulation (known ERP waveform with controlled latency jitter and additive noise) showing that r_f[n] reduces amplitude estimation error relative to conventional averaging, and an external-criterion check in which larger amplitude is not automatically treated as better. The S1/S2 and 10-fold designs are genuinely out-of-sample for the RMS/MAD computation, but out-of-sample distance reduction is still an internal-fit measure: a variance-reduced average is closer to arbitrary trials without necessarily being closer to the true ERP.
  2. [§1, §4 (comparison baseline)] The Introduction reviews the closest prior work—the Woody adaptive filter [19], the DTW-based averaging of Casarotto et al. [21], the nonlinear cycle alignment of Kotas et al. [22], and the warp-averaging method of Wang et al. [17]—but the results section contains no benchmark against any of them. Since these methods target the same problem (jitter and latency-jitter-induced attenuation in averaged ERPs) and the paper claims that the proposed scheme 'improves the averaged ERP waveforms', the lack of comparison leaves the incremental contribution unquantified and does not allow the reader to judge whether the reported RMS/MAD reductions and P200 amplitude increases are specific to the proposed filtered DTW scheme or generic to warping-based approaches. A comparison on the same folds and the same metrics (Eqs. (4)–(5) and the Table 1 protocol) would settle this.
  3. [§4.1, Table 1] The headline P200 gains are reported without any significance test, and it is unclear whether the delay/peak/amplitude values in Table 1 are measured on the training-fold averages or on the left-out test folds: the text says 'one of them is left out whereas the remaining folds are employed at each evaluation step' but does not say which set is measured. The fold-to-fold standard deviations are extremely small (e.g., 0.246 µV vs. 0.235 µV for peak), yet no paired test across the 10 folds is reported. In addition, the P200 analysis covers only one subject (subject 02), one channel (channel 2), and the spoken modality, so the claim that the scheme improves ERP components in general is supported by a single case.
  4. [§4.2, Table 2] The classification result is a 1.22-percentage-point accuracy difference (59.52% vs. 58.30%) on a small dataset (the authors state that the least-populated class has 67 trials after artefact removal and splitting). No confidence interval, significance test, or repeated cross-validation variability is reported, and the single confusion matrix (Fig. 12) is not accompanied by the corresponding conventional-average matrix for direct comparison. As presented, Table 2 does not establish even a 'slight consistent improvement', and the wording in Section 4.2 goes beyond the evidence.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract, §2.1] The abstract's phrase 'latency jitter, jitter, and amplitude' is redundant (latency jitter is a form of jitter), and 'at the sight of the experiments carried out' should read 'in view of the experiments carried out'.
  2. [§3.2] In Section 3.2, 'Excerpts of 1.2 ms build the trials that are analysed' should presumably be '1.2 s', given that the same section reports trial durations of 3.5 and 5.5 s.
  3. [§3.5, Eqs. (4)–(5)] Equations (4) and (5) are typeset in a corrupted form in the manuscript (the RMS expression is incomplete), and the superscript notation linking the three averages (conventional, w, f) to the symbol * should be clarified.
  4. [§3.4] The modified DTW reconstruction is described in prose only; a short pseudocode block specifying the treatment of consecutive (0,1) steps and the final sample-repetition rule would make the algorithm exactly reproducible.
  5. [§4.1] The statement that the RMS/MAD behaviour 'is found not only for the data shown... but for all the data analysed from [48]' is unverifiable from the results shown; aggregate statistics over all channels, subjects, modalities, and categories (or a link to the derived results) are needed to support it.
  6. [§4.1, Fig. 10] The sampling-rate sensitivity analysis (Fig. 10) covers only the RMS metric; extending it to MAD and P200 amplitude would strengthen the claim that sampling rate does not alter the behaviour.
  7. [Fig. 9 caption; Ref. [52]] Minor typos: the Fig. 9 caption contains 'valúes', and reference [52] contains 'Naturea398' (should be 'Nature 398').

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The P200-amplitude and standard-deviation evidence is partly co-defined by warping each trial to the conventional average, but held-out RMS/MAD and cross-validated classification provide non-tautological support.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.4 (Eqs. (1)-(3)) and Section 4.1 (Fig. 7, Table 1)]
    "In order to build an improved average, a warped or aligned version using DTW of each trial, for a certain stimulus, is obtained. This signal version represents the one that best fits the common ERP average. ... In Fig. 7, it can be observed that the standard deviation decreases significantly when DTW-based average is employed, and also EEG components seem more clearly defined."

    The warped signals are defined by minimizing the local cost in Eq. (1) against the shared conventional average r[n]; therefore the reduced spread of the warped signals around the DTW-based average (Fig. 7) is an optimization consequence, not an independent measurement that the average is closer to the true ERP. The larger P200 peak and amplitude in Table 1 are likewise the expected result of aligning each trial's P200 to the P200 already present in the template r[n]. These internal-fit metrics do not by themselves validate the claim of improved ERP recovery. The S1/S2 split and 10-fold CV RMS/MAD/classification results are held out and hence not circular, so the central claim retains independent support.

full rationale

This paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: the DTW machinery (Ellis, Senin, Müller) and datasets (Simanova, Birbaumer) are external, and the authors' own prior work is not invoked to justify the method. The core derivation is self-contained: Eq. (1) defines a cost matrix against the conventional average, Eq. (3) defines the filtered DTW average as the mean of the warped trials, and the S1/S2 and 10-fold CV protocols compare raw held-out trials (Eq. (4), Eq. (5)) to averages built from independent folds. The only questionable step is the presentation of the warped signals' reduced standard deviation and the inflated P200 amplitude as evidence of a 'better' ERP: both are largely consequences of warping every trial to the same template r[n]. Because the headline amplitude gain is co-defined by the alignment objective, I flag a minor to moderate self-definitional element (score 3); the held-out RMS/MAD and classification experiments prevent the derivation from being fully circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method itself has no fitted regression parameters; its main design choices are the DTW path restriction, the low-pass filter design, and the use of the conventional average as the reference. The evaluation relies on several unstated assumptions about what an improved average is, which are reflected in the axioms.

free parameters (2)
  • Kaiser low-pass filter stop-band attenuation = 60 dB
    Set by the authors in Section 3.4; affects the smoothness of the filtered warped average.
  • Low-pass filter cutoff frequency = maximum frequency of s_t[n]
    Chosen per signal in Section 3.4, not fitted to outcome; still a free design choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The conventional trial average r[n] is a suitable reference template for aligning all trials.
    Section 3.4 defines the warping target as the conventional average; if this template is distorted by jitter, the alignment inherits that distortion.
  • ad hoc to paper RMS/MAD between single trials and an average is a valid measure of ERP estimation quality.
    Section 3.5 and Section 4.1 use internal fit to individual trials as the main evidence of improvement, without a ground-truth signal.
  • standard math Standard DTW path constraints (monotonicity, boundary, continuity) are applied.
    Section 2.2 and Eqs. (1)-(2); standard algorithm.
  • domain assumption The P200 peak and amplitude detection intervals and methods are appropriate for the data.
    Section 3.5, referencing [32] and [61].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced average for event-related potential analysis using dynamic time warping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQA6FOIV

@misc{pith2026241113172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced average for event-related potential analysis using dynamic time warping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQA6FOIV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13172}
}
read the original abstract

Electroencephalography (EEG) provides a way to understand, and evaluate neurotransmission. In this context, time-locked EEG activity or event-related potentials (ERPs) are often used to capture neural activity related to specific mental processes. Normally, they are considered on the basis of averages across a number of trials. However, there exist notable variability in latency jitter, jitter, and amplitude, across trials, and, also, across users; this causes the average ERP waveform to blur, and, furthermore, diminish the amplitude of underlying waves. For these reasons, a strategy is proposed for obtaining ERP waveforms based on dynamic time warping (DTW) to adapt, and adjust individual trials to the averaged ERP, previously calculated, to build an enhanced average by making use of these warped signals. At the sight of the experiments carried out on the behaviour of the proposed scheme using publicly available datasets, this strategy reduces the attenuation in amplitude of ERP components thanks to the reduction of the influence of variability of latency and jitter, and, thus, improves the averaged ERP waveforms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Woody, Characterization of an adaptive filter for the analysis of variable latency neuroelectric signals, Med

    C.D. Woody, Characterization of an adaptive filter for the analysis of variable latency neuroelectric signals, Med. Biol. Eng. 5 (1967) 539-554

    work page 1967

  2. [17]

    K. Wang, H. Begleiter, B. Porjesz, Warp-averaging event-related potentials, Clin. Neurophysiol. 112 (10) (2001) 1917-1924

    work page 2001

  3. [21]

    Numerical Reconstruction of 2D Magnetic Focusing Experiments

    S. Casarotto, A. Bianchi, S. Cerutti, G. Chiarenza, Dynamic time warping in the analysis of event-related potentials, IEEE Eng. Med. Biolo. Mag. 24 (1) (2005) 68-77, .http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MEMB.2005.1384103

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  4. [22]

    Kotas, T

    M. Kotas, T. Pander, J.M. Leski, Averaging of nonlinearly aligned signal cycles for noise suppression, Biomed. Signal Process. Control 21 (2015) 157-168, , URL: . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2015.06.003 https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S1746809415001056 [23] T. Fukami, J. Watanabe, F. Ishikawa, Robust estimation of event-related po-...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2015.06.003 2015

  5. [1]

    Leonowicz, J

    Z. Leonowicz, J. Karvanen, S.L. Shishkin, Trimmed estimators for robust averaging of event-related potentials, J. Neurosci. Methods 142 (1) (2005) 17-26

    work page 2005

  6. [2]

    D. Heo, M. Kim, J. Kim, Y.J. Choi, S.-P. Kim, The uses of brain-computer interface in different postures to application in real life, in: 2022 10th International Winter Conference on Brain-Computer Interface, BCI, 2022, pp. 1-5, . http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1109/BCI53720.2022.9734957

    arXiv 2022

  7. [3]

    Y. Wang, M. Nakanishi, D. Zhang, EEG-based brain-computer interfaces, in: X. Zheng (Ed.), Neural Interface: Frontiers and Applications, Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2019, pp. 41-65, .http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2050-7_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-13-2050-7_2 2019

  8. [4]

    McCane, S.M

    L.M. McCane, S.M. Heckman, D.J. McFarland, G. Townsend, J.N. Mak, E.W. Sellers, D. Zeitlin, L.M. Tenteromano, J.R. Wolpaw, T.M. Vaughan, P300-based brain-computer interface (BCI) event-related potentials (ERPs): People with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) vs. age-matched controls, Clin. Neurophysiol. 126 (11) (2015) 2124-2131, , URL: . http://dx.doi.o...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2015.01.013 2015

Show all 38 references
  1. [6]

    Luck, An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005

    S.J. Luck, An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005

    2005

  2. [7]

    Luck, An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique, MIT Press, 2014

    S.J. Luck, An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique, MIT Press, 2014

    2014

  3. [8]

    L. Hu, Z. Zhang, EEG Signal Processing and Feature Extraction, Springer, 2019, .http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978- 981- 13- 9113- 2 [9] A. de Cheveigné, D.D. Wong, G.M. Di Liberto, J. Hjortkjaer, M. Slaney, E. Lalor, Decoding the auditory brain with canonical component analysis, N...

    2018 doi

  4. [10]

    Light, L.E

    G.A. Light, L.E. Williams, F. Minow, J. Sprock, A. Rissling, R. Sharp, N.R. Swerdlow, D.L. Braff, Electroencephalography (EEG) and event-related potentials (ERPs) with human participants, Curr. Protocols Neurosci. 52 (1) (2010) 6.25.1-6.25.24, , URL: . http://dx.doi.org/10.100...

    2010 doi

  5. [11]

    Tandon, A.S

    O. Tandon, A.S. Mahajan, Averaged evoked potentials: Event related potentials (ERPs) and their applications, Indian J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 43 (1999) 425-434. [12] V.J. Samar, K.P. Swartz, M.R. Raghuveer, Multiresolution analysis of event- related potentials by wavelet decompos...

    1999

  6. [14]

    Mouraux, G.D

    A. Mouraux, G.D. Iannetti, Across-trial averaging of event-related EEG responses and beyond, Magn. Reson. Imaging 26 (7) (2008) 1041-1054. [15] A.H. Zisk, S.B. Borgheai, J. McLinden, S.M. Hosni, R.J. Deligani, Y. Shahriari, P300 latency jitter and its correlates in people with...

    2008

  7. [18]

    Ouyang, W

    G. Ouyang, W. Sommer, C. Zhou, Reconstructing ERP amplitude effects after compensating for trial-to-trial latency jitter: A solution based on a novel application of residue iteration decomposition, Int. J. Psychophysiol. 109 (2016) 9-20, , URL: . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ij...

    2016 doi

  8. [20]

    Gibbons, J

    H. Gibbons, J. Stahl, Response-time corrected averaging of event-related potentials, Clin. Neurophysiol. 118 (1) (2007) 197-208

    2007

  9. [24]

    Huang, B

    H.-C. Huang, B. Jansen, EEG waveform analysis by means of Dynamic Time-Warping, Int. J. Bio-Med. Comput. 17 (2) (1985) 135-144

    1985

  10. [25]

    Q. Li, G.D. Clifford, Dynamic Time Warping and Machine Learning for signal quality assessment of pulsatile signals, Physiol. Measur. 33 (9) (2012) 1491

    2012

  11. [26]

    Yamauchi, K

    T. Yamauchi, K. Xiao, C. Bowman, A. Mueen, Dynamic time warping: A single dry electrode EEG study in a self-paced learning task, in: International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, ACII, 2015, pp. 56-62, .http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ACII.2015.7344551

    2015

  12. [27]

    Liu, Y.-A

    Y.-T. Liu, Y.-A. Zhang, M. Zeng, Adaptive global time sequence averaging method using dynamic time warping, IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 67 (8) (2019) 2129-2142, .http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2019.2897958 [28] F. Petitjean, A. Ketterlin, P. Gan^arski, A global averaging method...

    2019

  13. [29]

    J.W. Li, S. Barma, S.H. Pun, F. Chen, C. Li, M.T. Li, P.K. Wang, M.I. Vai, P.U. Mak, EEG-based emotion recognition using similarity measure of brain rhythm sequencing, in: 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society, EMBC, 2021, p...

    2022

  14. [32]

    Sur, V.K

    S. Sur, V.K. Sinha, Event-related potential: An overview, Ind. Psychiatry J. 18 (2009) 70-73

    2009

  15. [33]

    Usakli, Improvement of EEG signal acquisition: An electrical aspect for state of the art of front end, Comput

    A.B. Usakli, Improvement of EEG signal acquisition: An electrical aspect for state of the art of front end, Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2010 (2010)

    2010

  16. [34]

    Linden, The P300: Where in the brain is it produced and what does it tell us? Neuroscientist 11 (6) (2005) 563-576,

    D.E.J. Linden, The P300: Where in the brain is it produced and what does it tell us? Neuroscientist 11 (6) (2005) 563-576, . http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1073858405280524

    2005

  17. [35]

    Verleger, P

    R. Verleger, P. Jaskowski, E. Wascher, Evidence for an integrative role of P3b in linking reaction to perception, J. Psychophysiol. 19 (3) (2005) 165-181, .http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803.19.3.165

    2005 doi

  18. [36]

    Yu, The Impact of Latency Jitter on the Interpretation of P300 in the Assessment of Cognitive Function (Ph.D

    X. Yu, The Impact of Latency Jitter on the Interpretation of P300 in the Assessment of Cognitive Function (Ph.D. thesis), University of South Florida, 2016, URL: , visited on 2022-03-03. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The- Impact- of- Latency- Jitter- on- the- Interpret...

    2016

  19. [37]

    Walhovd, H

    K.B. Walhovd, H. Rosquist, A.M. Fjell, P300 amplitude age reductions are not caused by latency jitter, Psychophysiology 45 (4) (2008) 545-553

    2008

  20. [38]

    Freunberger, W

    R. Freunberger, W. Klimesch, M. Doppelmayr, Y. Holler, Visual P2 component is related to theta phase-locking, Neurosci. Lett. 426 (3) (2007) 181-186, , URL: . http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2007.08.062 https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0304394007009482 1...

    2007 doi

  21. [39]

    Du, F.-S

    X. Du, F.-S. Choa, A. Summerfelt, L. Rowland, J. Chiappelli, P. Kochunov, N100 as a generic cortical electrophysiological marker based on decomposition of TMS- evoked potentials across five anatomic locations, Exp. Brain Res. 235 (2017) .http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221- 016- 4773- 7

    2017 doi

  22. [40]

    Giroldini, L

    W. Giroldini, L. Pederzoli, M. Bilucaglia, S. Melloni, P. Tressoldi, A new method to detect event-related potentials based on Pearson’s correlation, EURASIP J. Bioinform. Syst. Biol. 2016 (2016) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13637-016-0043- z

    2016 doi

  23. [41]

    Murray, G

    J.G. Murray, G. Ouyang, D.I. Donaldson, Compensation of trial-to-trial latency jitter reveals the parietal retrieval success effect to be both variable and thresholded in older adults, Front. Ag. Neurosci. 11 (2019) 179, , URL: . http://dx. doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2019.00179 htt...

    2019

  24. [42]

    Berndt, J

    D.J. Berndt, J. Clifford, Using Dynamic Time Warping to find patterns in time series, in: KDD Workshop, Vol. 10, no. 16, Seattle, WA, USA:, 1994, pp. 359-370

    1994

  25. [43]

    Ellis, Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) in MATLAB, 2022, URL:

    D. Ellis, Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) in MATLAB, 2022, URL: . (Accessed on 03 March 2022). https://www. ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/resources/matlab/dtw/

    2022

  26. [44]

    Müller, Information Retrieval for Music and Motion, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007, pp

    M. Müller, Information Retrieval for Music and Motion, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 69-84

    2007

  27. [45]

    Ricardo Portilla, D

    B.H. Ricardo Portilla, D. Lee, Understanding dynamic time warping, 2019, URL: , visited on 2022-03-03. https://databricks.com/blog/2019/04/30/understanding- dynamic- time- warping.html [46] P. Senin, Dynamic Time Warping Algorithm Review, Vol. 855, no. 1-23, Information and Co...

    2019

  28. [47]

    B.J. Jain, D. Schultz, Optimal warping paths are unique for almost every pair of time series, 2017, CoRR abs/1705.05681, URL: , . http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05681 arXiv:1705.05681

    2017 arXiv

  29. [48]

    Simanova, M

    I. Simanova, M. van Gerven, R. Oostenveld, P. Hagoort, Identifying object cate- gories from event-related EEG: Toward decoding of conceptual representations, PLoS One 5 (12) (2010) 1-12, .http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014465

    2010 doi

  30. [49]

    https://bids

    BIDS Community, Brain imaging data structure, 2022, URL: , visited on 2022-03-03. https://bids. neuroimaging.io/ [50] S.J. Luck, A.X. Stewart, A.M. Simmons, M. Rhemtulla, Standardized measurement error: A universal metric of data quality for averaged event-related potentials, ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.