-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Comments
yea, fortunately we agree on that :) 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. 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 ). 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 |
Ok, let's just stick to "frequency tagging" for now then. |
sure, i thought we had discussed this a bit before but maybe i mix things up :) |
@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!):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: