Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

analysis name: frequency tagging? #3

Open
kalenkovich opened this issue Apr 14, 2021 · 3 comments
Open

analysis name: frequency tagging? #3

kalenkovich opened this issue Apr 14, 2021 · 3 comments

Comments

@kalenkovich
Copy link
Member

@dominikwelke, I read your conversation with Rob Luke about what the analysis/method/phenomenon name should be: frequency tagging, steady-state response, etc. (don't want to link the mne-python issue to avoid spamming everyone with "this issue has been mentioned").

My personal preference (see the repo/package name 😃) is frequency tagging. The reason is that it is modality-neutral in the literature. My light googling showed that the auditory people prefer ASSR (auditory steady-state response) while the visual people mostly use VSSEP (visual steady-state evoked potential). Obviously, the common denominator is the steady-state part but steady-state what? Response implies some external stimulus (I strongly disagree on this with Rob Luke when he said that frequency tagging implied an external stimulus while ASSR did not, I think it is the opposite). So does evoked in evoked potential. Then we can just use potential but that excludes the MEG people. Which might not be a problem: I think no one ever was really confused by the use ERP when what was meant was ERF (I was confused by ERF though).

I am not sure who coined the "frequency tagging" term. The earliest use I could find was in this 2009 paper by Marco Buiatti et al. Here is a post by Dr. Buiatti called "frequency tagging".

And just to add my personal understanding of the term: a specific frequency tags an external stimulus (think SSVEP) or an endogenous (think tinnitus frequency example from Rob).

Here is a list of names used with pros and cons (feel free to update it!):

Name Pro Con Ref with usage
frequency-tagging
  • modality-neutral
  • no stimulation implied
unfamiliar to users Marco Buiatti et al., 2009
ASSR well-established
  • modality-specific
  • stimulation implied
lots and lots
VSSEP well-established
  • modality-specific
  • stimulation implied
lots and lots
FVPS intuitive
  • modality-specific
  • stimulation implied
  • very specific stimulation implied
  • easily confusable with related RSVP
Stothart et al., 2020
@dominikwelke
Copy link
Collaborator

dominikwelke commented Apr 16, 2021

yea, fortunately we agree on that :)
thanks for the nice table: will add entries if i see something else

i was actually surprised, how strongly Rob seemed to feel on this, but i dont think i will enter a fight on this.

"steady-state activity" could be another option that comes without "response" or "potential vs. field" ballast.

but as i already mentioned / tried to convey in the mne issue I am less happy with the "steady-state" part.
yes, in the logic of our analysis its a steady signal (meaning we assume it steady after a transient phase to be able to do the anaylsis we do), but the brain doesnt do anything steady - i guess in assr its something like a dynamic tracking of the stimulus envelope, and in ssvep something like a series of VEPs, that manifests as a peak in the fft spectrum.
further on ppl showed effects of directed attention: hence, if ppl shift attention to or from a assr/ssvep stimulus during a trial the strength of the response should change dynamically (which we dont see, of course, doing an fft over the whole trial)

however, i do agree with Rob that frequency tagging (at least intuitively) implies a researchers manipulation. but this doesnt bother me, since this is what usually happens in studies. i couldnt think of many possible endogenous sources (only tinnitus, or maybe some very esoteric things like hypothesizing harmonic responses to our individual alpha :D ).
and then, similar to what you said, its always possible to turn it around and say "the EEG has a frequency tag, who cares whether it's a syntetic or a 'natural' source that induces it?"

speaking of tinnitus: I'm not even sure if this is a good example... if it is a high pitch pure tone / sine in the range of several khz you cannot actually see it in the eeg, right? unless one samles with 10 khz :D
a superficial lit search showed me that tinnitus seems to be able to enhance ASSR, though.

@kalenkovich
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, let's just stick to "frequency tagging" for now then.

@dominikwelke
Copy link
Collaborator

sure, i thought we had discussed this a bit before but maybe i mix things up :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants