Skip to main content
Log in

Do's and don'ts in Fourier analysis of steady-state potentials

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fourier analysis is a powerful tool in signal analysis that can be very fruitfully applied to steady-state evoked potentials (flicker ERG, pattern ERG, VEP, etc.). However, there are some inherent assumptions in the underlying discrete Fourier transform (DFT) that are not necessarily fulfilled in typical electrophysiological recording and analysis conditions. Furthermore, engineering software-packages may be ill-suited and/or may not fully exploit the information of steady-state recordings. Specifically:

• In the case of steady-state stimulation we know more about the stimulus than in standard textbook situations (exact frequency, phase stability), so `windowing' and calculation of the `periodogram' are not necessary.

• It is mandatory to choose an integer relationship between sampling rate and frame rate when employing a raster-based CRT stimulator.

• The analysis interval must comprise an exact integer number (e.g., 10) of stimulus periods.

• The choice of the number of stimulus periods per analysis interval needs a wise compromise: A high number increases the frequency resolution, but makes artifact removal difficult; a low number `spills' noise into the response frequency.

• There is no need to feel tied to a power-of-two number of data points as required by standard FFT, `resampling' is an easy and efficient alternative.

• Proper estimates of noise-corrected Fourier magnitude and statistical significance can be calculated that take into account the non-linear superposition of signal and noise.

These aspects are developed in an intuitive approach with examples using both simulations and recordings. Proper use of Fourier analysis of our electrophysiological records will reduce recording time and/or increase the reliability of physiologic or pathologic interpretations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marmor MF, Zrenner E. Standard for clinical electroretinography (1999 update). Doc Ophthalmol 1999; 97: 143–156.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Marmor M, Holder G, Porciatti V, Trick G, Zrenner E. Guidelines for basic pattern electroretinography. Recommendations by the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology of Vision. Doc Ophthalmol 1996; 19: 291–8.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Simon F. The phase of PVEP in Maxwellian view: Influence of contrast, spatial and temporal frequency. Vision Res 1992; 32: 591–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bach M, Meigen T, Strasburger H. Raster-scan cathode ray tubes for vision research – limits of resolution in space, time and intensity, and some solutions. Spatial Vision 1997; 10: 403–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT. Numerical recipes. The art of scientific computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986: Pages.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Papoulis A. Probability, random variables, and stochastic processes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984: Pages.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cooley, JW, Tukey J. An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex fourier series. Math Comput 1965; 19: 297–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. O'Neill MA. Faster than fast Fourier. Byte 1988; 4: 293–300.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Winograd S. On Computing the Discrete Fourier Transform. Math Comput 1978; 141: 175–99.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Victor JD, Mast J. A new statistic for steady-state evoked potentials. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol 1991; 78: 378–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sieving PA, Arnold EB, Jamison J, Liepa A, Coats C. Submicrovolt flicker electroretinogram: Cycle-by-cycle recording of multiple harmonics with statistical estimation of measurement uncertainty. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998; 39: 1462–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Meigen T, Bach M. On the statistical significance of electrophysiological steady-state responses. Doc Ophthalmol 1999; 98: 207–232.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Strasburger H. The analysis of steady state evoked potentials revisited. Clin Vision Sci 1987; 1: 245–56.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hamer RD, Wesemann W. Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP. Vision Res 1989; 29: 627–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bach, M., Meigen, T. Do's and don'ts in Fourier analysis of steady-state potentials. Doc Ophthalmol 99, 69–82 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002648202420

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002648202420

Navigation