Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

The Bibliometric Analysis of EEGLAB Software in the Web of Science Indexed Articles

Altmetrics

Downloads

99

Views

55

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

supplementary.docx (29.09MB )

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

13 October 2023

Posted:

16 October 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Introduction: EEGLAB is one of the most famous software for processing, analyzing, and researching experiments that have Electroencephalography (EEG) datasets. Due to the numerous and famous add-ins along with global, widespread communications and online free training, its popularity increased every year. Method: To address this phenomenon from a bibliographic perspective, we found 20,464 citations in Google Scholar for the main EEGLAB reference since 8/27/2023. Then, only the Web of Science (WOS) articles were 12,700 that they were extracted. The results were analyzed with Bibliometrix package from CRAN R software. Results: The time span of these articles is from 2004 to 2023 with 12,700 documents in 1,125 sources (journals, books, etc.), 29,125 authors, 19,062 author’s keywords, 13,707 keywords PLUS, 279,617 references. The annual growth rate is 28.12 %, international Co-authorship is 37.27 % and Co-authors per document is s 4.89 and the average citations per document is 22.51. The most relevant sources are Neuroimage, Frontiers in Human Neurosciences, Scientific Reports, Psychophysiology, and PLOS One with 780, 526, 446,425, and 371 articles, respectively. The most cited countries are the USA, Germany, and the United Kingdom with 93,093, 32,621, and 20,748 total citations, respectively. The ERPLAB, ADJUST, and ICLabel add-ins have the local to global citation ratios equal to 85.4%, 65.1%, and 78.2% respectively. Other bibliometric analyses such as co-occurrence networks and thematic maps of abstracts, titles, and keywords are estimated and presented. Conclusions: EEGLAB is among the most cited MATLAB toolboxes in computational neuroscience. Many developed and developing countries use it in their research publications.
Keywords: 
Subject: Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Neuroscience and Neurology

Highlights:

  • Summarizes 12,700 ISI-indexed articles about EEGLAB.
  • Clustered Collaboration Network University into 6 segments.
  • Presented the trend topics plot for keyword plus.
  • Presented Co-Citation Network of authors for all and core sources.
  • Have a big Supplementary Materials for further analysis and reproducible results.

1. Introduction

The EEGLAB was presented as MATLAB (http://www.mathworks.com/) open-source toolbox in a research publication in 2004 by Arnaud Delorme and Scott Makeig from Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience, Institute for Neural Computation, University of California San Diego, USA [1]. It has an interactive graphical User interface (GUI) with independent component analysis (ICA), Time/Frequency Analysis (TFA), and more than 150 plug-ins for example Fieldtrip-lite [2] , ERPLAB [3], ICLabel [4], SIFT [5] , AMICA [6], PACT [7] and LIMO [8] to analyze dynamic brain data. (https://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/plugin_uploader/plugin_list_all.php)
Although it is not the only software in neuroscience research, it has a big community of users and developers from different countries and various expertise in neurosciences, biomechanics, Psychology, Bioengineering, Biosignal processing, Neuromechanics, Rehabilitation, Software engineering, Biostatistics, and data science. Also, it is used with other software for EEG- fMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging) datasets with SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) [9], EEG-NIRS (near-infrared spectroscopy) dataset with BBCI Toolbox [10], BCILAB in brain–computer interface (BCI) development [11], in R packages like neuroconductor [12] and medical researches [13] and the Virtual Brain (TVB) [14,15].
The systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies about EEG were highly cited and popular for example Default-mode brain dysfunction in mental disorders [16], deep learning [17], feature extraction [18] and meta-analysis for randomized controlled trials for Nonpharmacological interventions for ADHD [19]. But the bibliometric analysis is new and was limited to the application of EEG indices in human cognitive performance with 143 items [20], Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) research with 2310 items [21], mental fatigue on athletic performance with 658 items [22], Quantitative EEG in neuropsychiatric field with 1904 articles [23], neuromarketing with 30 items [24] and 24 items [25], Consumer Neurosciences with 364 items [26], consumer behavior and marketing with 497 items [27] , strategic management studies with 105 items [28] ,Neurorehabilitation with 874 items [29], Neuroarchitecture Assessment with 295 items [30] and Construction [31].
Sometimes bibliometric analysis is combined with different text mining methods such as topic modeling and word clouds. They show the most important words in a text by statistical and machine learning methods [32,33]. The recent study of AI-enhanced human EEG analysis with 2,053 research items presented world clouds [34]. In this study, we present the bibliometric analysis with some text mining methods for aggregated abstracts by using the bibliometrix R package for all available ISI research articles that have been cited the EEGLAB [35].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Gathering

The EEGLAB was introduced in the “Delorme A, Makeig S. EEGLAB: an open-source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of neuroscience methods. 2004 Mar 15;134(1):9-21.” [1]. Since 8/27/2023, there have been 20,464 citations in the Google Scholar. It consists of different types of articles, proceedings, poster presentations, etc. In this research, only available items in the Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection (2001-present) have been collected from webofknowledge.com. It consists of four databases: 1) Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED)--2001-present, 2) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)--2001-present, 3) Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI)--2001-present and 4) Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)--2018-present. The available items were 12,700 (~62.1% of all Google Scholar citations) and they were collected, integrated, and saved with bib format file. They were not all references such as only SCOPUS indexed journals, but only articles published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) journals.

2.2. Data Analysis

The data and bibliography analysis were conducted with Bibliometrix [35] package in R studio 2023.06.1 and R Core Team (2022). [36]

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

The timespan is from 2004 to 2023 with 12,700 documents published in 1,125 ISI-indexed sources (journals, books etc.), written by 29,125 authors, including 19,062 author’s keywords, 13,707 keywords PLUS and 279,617 references. The annual growth rate of publication is 28.12 %, international Co-authorship is 37.27 % and Co-authors per document is 4.89 and the average citations per document is 22.51. According to the Clarivate website, the keyword PLUS are words or phrases that frequently appear in the titles of an article's references, but do not appear in the title of the article itself.

3.2. Sources

The most relevant sources are Neuroimage, Frontiers in Human Neurosciences, Scientific Reports, Psychophysiology and PLOS One with 780, 526, 446,425 and 371 articles. According to the Bradford’s Law, these first five journals plus Journal of Neuroscience, Neuropsychologia, Clinical Neurophysiology, Frontiers in Neuroscience, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience and International Journal of Psychophysiology have 4,318 (34.00%) articles and they are categorized as the core sources. These articles came from 11 out of 1,125 sources and they have 12,062 out of 29,125 authors. The local impact of the first five journals is presented at Table 1.
According to the definition of the Hirsch-index or H-index, “A scientist has index h   if h  of his or her N p   papers have at least h  citations each and the other ( N p − h )  papers have fewer than ≤ h  citations each.” [37] The g-index is introduced as an improvement of the h-index to measure the global citation performance of a set of articles [38] It is the highest number g  of papers that together received g 2  or more citations . The M-Index definition is “ h y  where h = h − i n d e x , y = n u m b e r   o f   y e a r s   s i n c e   p u b l i s h i n g   t h e   f i r s t   p a p e r . ” [39]. According to Table 1, Neuroimage journal has the highest values of H-Index, G-Index ,and M-Index and total citations.

3.3. Authors

Some results of author analysis are not very reliable, because many author names have the same abbreviations especially in Chinese first and last names and their unique ORCID code is not available. Therefore, only related analysis was reported that the names are famous and related to the specific person.
The 19,416 (66.7%), 4,432 (15.2%), 1,879 (6.5%) and 292 (1.0 %) authors have only 1, 2, 3 and 7 articles, respectively. The most cited countries are the USA, Germany and the United Kingdom with 93,093, 32,621 and 20,748 total citations, respectively. The collaboration network between universities is estimated and clustered with Walktrap method into 6 clusters. [40] According to Figure 2, the biggest cluster is yellow with the University of California San Diego (UC) where the Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience located, the hosting lab of EEGLAB. The red, green and brown clusters have only German, Chinese and European countries universities, respectively. The clusters also have relationships between each other. The university name and their countries are listed in Table 2.
We also estimate the collaborations between countries. In this regard, we only consider 50 first countries and put them into 3 clusters based on the Wlaktrap algorithm:
  • Cluster 1: China, Japan, South Korea, Israel, India, Greece, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Thailand, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh
  • Cluster 2: USA, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, France, Australia, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Iran, Brazil, Norway, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Austria, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, Turkey, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Mexico, Slovenia, Estonia, Serbia, Cuba, Luxembourg
  • Cluster 3: Chile, Argentina, Colombia

3.4. Documents

According to Table 3, “Global Citations (TC) means the Total Citations that an article, included in your collection, has received from documents indexed on a bibliographic database (WoS, Scopus, etc.).”, the applications such as FieldTrip [2], Brainstrom [41], ERPLAB [3] and MNE-Python [42] have the highest total citations. [35]
According to Table 4, local citations are “the citations that a reference has received from documents included in your collection” [35], local to global ratio is above 50% for the ERPLAB app [3], ADJUST app [49], ICLabel app [4] and ICA and Blind Source Separation (BSS) [50].
According to Table 5, the most locally cited references are EEGLAB [1], FieldTrip[2] and Nonparametric statistical tests [54].
The Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy (RPYS) [61] is presented in the supplementary. The years before 1900 are omitted because the number of them is very neglect. The peak at 2004 is related to the [1] with about 32.4% of all 39,155 references in 2004. And the highest peaks is in 2012 and 2014 with 40,360 and 40,431 references, respectively. The decline in the graph shows after 2014.
The trend topic of keyword plus is plotted. (Figure 3) The dynamic, EEG and brain terms have the highest frequency in 2019, while safety, mini-mental state and attentional capture term have the highest frequency in 2022.
The thematic map [62,63] of trigram words in abstracts is presented in Figure 4. It has four parts: 1) Niche themes (low centrality and high density, limited importance) including Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS), Transcranial Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). 2) Emerging or declined themes (low centrality and low density, marginal) including Local Field Potential (LFP) and Deep brain stimulation. 3) Motor Themes (high centrality and high density, important for research) including Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), Alzheimer diseases, mild cognitive impairment (MCI)and delta, theta, alpha. 4) Basic Themes (high centrality and low density, general topics) including Independent Component Analysis (ICA), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Brain Computer Interface (BCI), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Event Related potential (ERP) and Mismatch negativity (MMN).
The co-citation network between authors shows the relationship between cited sources in the documents in two populations: 1) All sources in Figure 5 and Table 6 show three clusters. Dr. Arnaud Delorme is in the center of the authors. 2) Core sources based on the Bradford Law Zone (n = 4318) in Figure 6. It has 7 clusters with Dr. Scott Makeig and Dr. Arnaud Delorme in one cluster, Dr. Stefan Debener in other clusters and Dr. Mike X Cohen in another cluster. The other remaning clusters are shown in Figure 6.

4. Conclusions

Despite the emerging and the growth of open source Python and related MNE library [42] for computational neuroscience (with more than 2,000 Google citations ), EEGLAB has the highest number of google citations among similar software like SPM [64] (with more than 11,000 Google citations). Many global and famous universities and research institutes published research with EEGLAB in the USA, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and Russia. But it is not limited to developed countries, and many developing countries like China, India, Taiwan, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cuba, Argentina, Colombia, and many others use it in their scientific experiments and publications.
One of the main limitations of this research is that it only considers the ISI-indexed articles. Still, due to the large number of research articles, it covers many important aspects of literature. The second limitation is that it is not about all computational neuroscience papers, but it is only about the papers that cited the EEGLAB and with a high probability have EEG datasets. For example, tDSC and tACS have existed in the niche theme of Figure 4, but they are growing topics in the neuroscience literature. [65,66]. The one direction for future research is bibliographic analysis of special statistical methods with EEGLAB and EEG datasets for example, machine learning methods such as support vector machine [67], dimension reduction methods such as ICA [43] , functional data analysis methods [68,69], and deep learning methods [17,70].
Further analysis including world clouds, tree maps, bar charts of the most frequent words in keywords plus, keyword, title (unigram, bigram, trigram) and abstract (unigram, bigram, trigram) and many others are presented in the Supplementary Materials.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at the website of this paper posted on Preprints.org. It has two supplementary: 1) Further Analysis and 2) the bib file for reproducing results (~ size: 100 mb).

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. Delorme, A.; Makeig, S. EEGLAB: An Open Source Toolbox for Analysis of Single-Trial EEG Dynamics Including Independent Component Analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 2004, 134, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Oostenveld, R.; Fries, P.; Maris, E.; Schoffelen, J.-M. FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2011, 156869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lopez-Calderon, J.; Luck, S.J. ERPLAB: an open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Pion-Tonachini, L.; Kreutz-Delgado, K.; Makeig, S. ICLabel: An automated electroencephalographic independent component classifier, dataset, and website. NeuroImage 2019, 198, 181–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Delorme, A.; Mullen, T.; Kothe, C.; Acar, Z.A.; Bigdely-Shamlo, N.; Vankov, A.; Makeig, S. EEGLAB, SIFT, NFT, BCILAB, and ERICA: New Tools for Advanced EEG Processing. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2011, 2011, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Palmer, J.A., K. Kreutz-Delgado, and S. Makeig, AMICA: An adaptive mixture of independent component analyzers with shared components. Swartz Center for Computatonal Neursoscience, University of California San Diego, Tech. Rep, 2012.
  7. Miyakoshi, M. , et al. Automated detection of cross-frequency coupling in the electrocorticogram for clinical inspection. in 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the Ieee Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (Embc). 2013. IEEE.
  8. Pernet, C.R. , et al., LIMO EEG: a toolbox for hierarchical LInear MOdeling of ElectroEncephaloGraphic data. Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2011. 2011: p. 1-11.
  9. Friston, K.J. , Statistical parametric mapping. Neuroscience databases: a practical guide, 2003: p. 237-250.
  10. Blankertz, B.; Acqualagna, L.; Dähne, S.; Haufe, S.; Schultze-Kraft, M.; Sturm, I.; Ušćumlic, M.; Wenzel, M.A.; Curio, G.; Müller, K.-R. The Berlin Brain-Computer Interface: Progress Beyond Communication and Control. Front. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Kothe, C.A.; Makeig, S. BCILAB: a platform for brain–computer interface development. J. Neural Eng. 2013, 10, 056014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Muschelli, J.; Gherman, A.; Fortin, J.-P.; Avants, B.; Whitcher, B.; Clayden, J.D.; Caffo, B.S.; Crainiceanu, C.M. Neuroconductor: an R platform for medical imaging analysis. Biostatistics 2018, 20, 218–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tran, X.A.; McDonald, N.; Dickinson, A.; Scheffler, A.; Frohlich, J.; Marin, A.; Liu, C.K.; Nosco, E.; Şentürk, D.; Dapretto, M.; et al. Functional connectivity during language processing in 3-month-old infants at familial risk for autism spectrum disorder. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2020, 53, 1621–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schirner, M.; Rothmeier, S.; Jirsa, V.K.; McIntosh, A.R.; Ritter, P. An automated pipeline for constructing personalized virtual brains from multimodal neuroimaging data. NeuroImage 2015, 117, 343–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. An, S.; Fousek, J.; Kiss, Z.H.; Cortese, F.; van der Wijk, G.; McAusland, L.B.; Ramasubbu, R.; Jirsa, V.K.; Protzner, A.B. High-resolution virtual brain modeling personalizes deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: Spatiotemporal response characteristics following stimulation of neural fiber pathways. NeuroImage 2021, 249, 118848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Broyd, S.J.; Demanuele, C.; Debener, S.; Helps, S.K.; James, C.J.; Sonuga-Barke, E.J. Default-mode brain dysfunction in mental disorders: A systematic review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2009, 33, 279–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Craik, A.; He, Y.; Contreras-Vidal, J.L. Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review. J. Neural Eng. 2019, 16, 031001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jenke, R.; Peer, A.; Buss, M. Feature Extraction and Selection for Emotion Recognition from EEG. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 2014, 5, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sonuga-Barke, E.J.; Brandeis, D.; Cortese, S.; Daley, D.; Ferrin, M.; Holtmann, M.; Stevenson, J.; Danckaerts, M.; Döpfner, M.; Dittmann, R.W.; et al. Nonpharmacological Interventions for ADHD: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials of Dietary and Psychological Treatments. Am. J. Psychiatry 2013, 170, 275–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ismail, L.E.; Karwowski, W. Applications of EEG indices for the quantification of human cognitive performance: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. PLOS ONE 2020, 15, e0242857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Wijaya, A.; Setiawan, N.A.; Ahmad, A.H.; Zakaria, R.; Othman, Z. Electroencephalography and mild cognitive impairment research: A scoping review and bibliometric analysis (ScoRBA). AIMS Neurosci. 2023, 10, 154–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, X.-X.; Ji, Z.-G.; Wang, Y.; Xu, J.; Wang, L.-Y.; Wang, H.-B. Bibliometric analysis of the effects of mental fatigue on athletic performance from 2001 to 2021. Front. Psychol. 2023, 13, 1019417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yao, S.; Zhu, J.; Li, S.; Zhang, R.; Zhao, J.; Yang, X.; Wang, Y. Bibliometric Analysis of Quantitative Electroencephalogram Research in Neuropsychiatric Disorders From 2000 to 2021. Front. Psychiatry 2022, 13, 830819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alsharif, A.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Pilelienė, L.; Abbas, A.F.; Ali, J. Current Trends in the Application of EEG in Neuromarketing: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sci. Ann. Econ. Bus. 2022, 69, 393–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Baharun, R.; E, A.R.H. Neuromarketing research in the last five years: a bibliometric analysis. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, Y.; Zhao, R.; Xiong, X.; Ren, X. A Bibliometric Analysis of Consumer Neuroscience towards Sustainable Consumption. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Costa-Feito, A.; González-Fernández, A.M.; Rodríguez-Santos, C.; Cervantes-Blanco, M. Electroencephalography in consumer behaviour and marketing: a science mapping approach. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Caneppele, N.R.; Serra, F.A.R.; Pinochet, L.H.C.; Ribeiro, I.M.R. Potential and challenges for using neuroscientific tools in strategic management studies. RAUSP Manag. J. 2022, 57, 235–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tsiamalou, A.; Dardiotis, E.; Paterakis, K.; Fotakopoulos, G.; Liampas, I.; Sgantzos, M.; Siokas, V.; Brotis, A.G. EEG in Neurorehabilitation: A Bibliometric Analysis and Content Review. Neurol. Int. 2022, 14, 1046–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ghamari, H.; Golshany, N.; Rad, P.N.; Behzadi, F. Neuroarchitecture Assessment: An Overview and Bibliometric Analysis. Eur. J. Investig. Heal. Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 1362–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Saedi, S.; Fini, A.A.F.; Khanzadi, M.; Wong, J.; Sheikhkhoshkar, M.; Banaei, M. Applications of electroencephalography in construction. Autom. Constr. 2021, 133, 103985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kontoghiorghes, L.; Colubi, A. New metrics and tests for subject prevalence in documents based on topic modeling. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2023, 157, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Winker, P. , Visualizing Topic Uncertainty in Topic Modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06482, 2023. arXiv:2302.06482, 2023.
  34. Chen, X.; Tao, X.; Wang, F.L.; Xie, H. Global research on artificial intelligence-enhanced human electroencephalogram analysis. Neural Comput. Appl. 2021, 34, 11295–11333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Team, R.D.C. , R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (No Title), 2010.
  37. Bornmann, L. and H.D. Daniel, What do we know about the h index? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology, 2007. 58(9): p. 1381-1385.
  38. Egghe, L. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 2006, 69, 131–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bornmann, L.; Mutz, R.; Daniel, H. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2008, 59, 830–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pons, P.; Latapy, M. Computing Communities in Large Networks Using Random Walks. J. Graph Algorithms Appl. 2006, 10, 191–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tadel, F.; Baillet, S.; Mosher, J.C.; Pantazis, D.; Leahy, R.M. Brainstorm: A User-Friendly Application for MEG/EEG Analysis. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2011, 2011, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gramfort, A.; Luessi, M.; Larson, E.; Engemann, D.A.; Strohmeier, D.; Brodbeck, C.; Goj, R.; Jas, M.; Brooks, T.; Parkkonen, L.; et al. MEG and EEG data analysis with MNE-Python. Front. Neurosci. 2013, 7, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Delorme, A.; Sejnowski, T.; Makeig, S. Enhanced detection of artifacts in EEG data using higher-order statistics and independent component analysis. NeuroImage 2006, 34, 1443–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Makeig, S.; Debener, S.; Onton, J.; Delorme, A. Mining event-related brain dynamics. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2004, 8, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Anguera, J.A.; Boccanfuso, J.; Rintoul, J.L.; Al-Hashimi, O.; Faraji, F.; Janowich, J.; Kong, E.; Larraburo, Y.; Rolle, C.; Johnston, E.; et al. Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature 2013, 501, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Gramfort, A.; Luessi, M.; Larson, E.; Engemann, D.A.; Strohmeier, D.; Brodbeck, C.; Parkkonen, L.; Hämäläinen, M.S. MNE software for processing MEG and EEG data. NeuroImage 2014, 86, 446–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lawhern, V.J.; Solon, A.J.; Waytowich, N.R.; Gordon, S.M.; Hung, C.P.; Lance, B.J. EEGNet: a compact convolutional neural network for EEG-based brain–computer interfaces. J. Neural Eng. 2018, 15, 056013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Debener, S.; Ullsperger, M.; Siegel, M.; Fiehler, K.; von Cramon, D.Y.; Engel, A.K. Trial-by-Trial Coupling of Concurrent Electroencephalogram and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Identifies the Dynamics of Performance Monitoring. J. Neurosci. 2005, 25, 11730–11737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Mognon, A.; Jovicich, J.; Bruzzone, L.; Buiatti, M. ADJUST: An automatic EEG artifact detector based on the joint use of spatial and temporal features. Psychophysiology 2011, 48, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Delorme, A.; Palmer, J.; Onton, J.; Oostenveld, R.; Makeig, S. Independent EEG Sources Are Dipolar. PLOS ONE 2012, 7, e30135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Groppe, D.M.; Urbach, T.P.; Kutas, M. Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology 2011, 48, 1711–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Onton, J.; Delorme, A.; Makeig, S. Frontal midline EEG dynamics during working memory. NeuroImage 2005, 27, 341–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Cavanagh, J.F.; Zambrano-Vazquez, L.; Allen, J.J.B. Theta lingua franca: A common mid-frontal substrate for action monitoring processes. Psychophysiology 2011, 49, 220–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Maris, E.; Oostenveld, R. Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. J. Neurosci. Methods 2007, 164, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Polich, J. Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2007, 118, 2128–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Oldfield, R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971, 9, 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bell, A.J.; Sejnowski, T.J. An Information-Maximization Approach to Blind Separation and Blind Deconvolution. Neural Comput. 1995, 7, 1129–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jung, T.-P. , et al., Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. Psychophysiology, 2000. 37(2): p. 163-178.
  59. Pfurtscheller, G.; Lopes da Silva, F.H. Event-related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: basic principles. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1999, 110, 1842–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Brainard, D.H. and S. Vision, The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial vision, 1997. 10(4): p. 433-436.
  61. Marx, W.; Bornmann, L.; Barth, A.; Leydesdorff, L. Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS). J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 65, 751–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Aria, M.; Misuraca, M.; Spano, M. Mapping the Evolution of Social Research and Data Science on 30 Years of Social Indicators Research. Soc. Indic. Res. 2020, 149, 803–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C.; D’aniello, L.; Misuraca, M.; Spano, M. Thematic Analysis as a New Culturomic Tool: The Social Media Coverage on COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Friston, K.J.; Holmes, A.P.; Worsley, K.J.; Poline, J.-P.; Frith, C.D.; Frackowiak, R.S.J. Statistical Parametric Maps in Functional Imaging: A General Linear Approach. Hum. Brain Mapp. 1994, 2, 189–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Day, P.; Twiddy, J.; Dubljević, V. Present and Emerging Ethical Issues with tDCS use: A Summary and Review. Neuroethics 2022, 16, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Manippa, V. , et al., Cognitive and neuropathophysiological outcomes of gamma-tACS in dementia: a systematic review. Neuropsychology Review, 2023: p. 1-24.
  67. Hastie, T. , et al., The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Vol. 2. 2009: Springer.
  68. Scheffler, A.; Telesca, D.; Li, Q.; A Sugar, C.; Distefano, C.; Jeste, S.; Şentürk, D. Hybrid principal components analysis for region-referenced longitudinal functional EEG data. Biostatistics 2018, 21, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ramsay, J. and B. Silverman, Functional Data Analysis. 2 ed. 2005: Springer New York, NY.
  70. Schirrmeister, R.T.; Springenberg, J.T.; Fiederer, L.D.J.; Glasstetter, M.; Eggensperger, K.; Tangermann, M.; Hutter, F.; Burgard, W.; Ball, T. Deep learning with convolutional neural networks for EEG decoding and visualization. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2017, 38, 5391–5420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 87772 g001
Figure 2. Collaboration Network University (6 Clusters).
Figure 2. Collaboration Network University (6 Clusters).
Preprints 87772 g001
Preprints 87772 g002
Figure 3. The trend topic plot of keyword plus.
Figure 3. The trend topic plot of keyword plus.
Preprints 87772 g002
Preprints 87772 g003
Figure 4. Thematic Map Trigram Word in Abstract.
Figure 4. Thematic Map Trigram Word in Abstract.
Preprints 87772 g003
Preprints 87772 g004
Figure 5. Co-Citation Network of Authors (3 Clusters).
Figure 5. Co-Citation Network of Authors (3 Clusters).
Preprints 87772 g004
Preprints 87772 g005
Figure 6. Co-Citation Network of Authors (7 Clusters) Core Sources – Bradford Law Zone (n = 4318).
Figure 6. Co-Citation Network of Authors (7 Clusters) Core Sources – Bradford Law Zone (n = 4318).
Preprints 87772 g005
Table 1. The Local Impact by Journals and Indices.
Table 1. The Local Impact by Journals and Indices.
Sources Local Impact Number Papers Start Year
H Index G Index M Index Total Citations
NEUROIMAGE 87 135 4.57 31,446 780 2005
JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE 73 123 3.84 18,584 310 2005
FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE 53 90 3.53 12,074 526 2009
PLOS ONE 50 79 2.94 9,755 371 2007
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY 48 94 2.52 11,230 425 2005
Table 2. The Collaboration Network Universities.
Table 2. The Collaboration Network Universities.
Row Cluster Color Universitas (Countries)*
1 1 Red carl von ossietzky univ oldenburg (Germany), univ leipzig (Germany), humboldt univ (Germany), max planck inst human cognit and brain sci (Germany)
2 2 Blue univ toronto (Canada), univ calif davis (USA), univ maryland (USA), univ cambridge (UK), univ wisconsin (USA), univ illinois (USA), univ tubingen (Germany), monash univ (Australia), univ minnesota (USA), univ british columbia (Canada), trinity coll dublin (Ireland), univ calif berkeley (USA), columbia univ (USA), univ florida (USA), shanghai jiao tong univ (China), vanderbilt univ (USA), univ tokyo (Japan), duke univ (USA)
3 3 Green beijing normal univ (China), southwest univ (China), inst psychol (?), peking univ (China), shenzhen univ (China)
4 4 Purple univ padua (Italy), mcgill univ (Canada), aix marseille univ (France), zhejiang univ (China), univ montreal (Canada)
5 5 Orange univ calif san diego (USA), harvard med sch (USA), univ pittsburgh (USA), northwestern univ (USA), tel aviv univ (Israel), univ michigan (USA), univ calif los angeles (USA), univ calif san francisco (USA), natl chiao tung univ (Taiwan), yale univ (USA), harvard univ (USA)
6 6 Brown univ zurich (Switzerland), univ helsinki (Finland), univ oxford (UK), radboud univ nijmegen (Netherlands), univ amsterdam(Netherlands), vrije univ amsterdam (Netherland), univ birmingham(UK)
*Abbreviation name of universities (Country name)
Table 3. The Most Global Cited Documents.
Table 3. The Most Global Cited Documents.
Row Ref Description Total Citations TC per Year Normalized TC
1 [2] FieldTrip app 5,427 417.46 59.16
2 [41] Brainstorm app 1,924 148.00 20.97
3 [3] ERPLAB app 1,422 142.20 34.99
4 [42] MNE-Python 1,099 99.91 25.83
5 [43] ICA – artifacts 1,087 63.94 12.35
6 [44] Event-related potentials 1,014 50.70 6.19
7 [45] Video game training 934 84.91 21.95
8 [46] MNE Processing 887 88.70 21.83
9 [47] EEGNet Model 853 142.17 40.13
10 [48] Coupling , EEG-fMRI 837 44.05 6.01
Table 4. The Most Local Cited Documents.
Table 4. The Most Local Cited Documents.
Row Ref Description Publication Year Citations
Local Global Ratio
1 [3] ERPLAB app 2014 1215 1422 85.4
2 [49] ADJUST app 2011 529 812 65.1
3 [43] ICA – Artifacts Detection 2007 524 1087 48.2
4 [44] ERP 2004 487 1014 48.0
5 [4] ICLabel app 2019 392 501 78.2
6 [50] ICA and BSS 2012 311 536 58.0
7 [51] multiple comparison correction 2011 296 716 41.3
8 [48] Coupling EEG/fMRI 2005 233 837 27.8
9 [52] log spectral ICA 2005 229 590 38.8
10 [53] ERP - Theta band 2012 172 428 40.2
Table 5. Most Local Cited References.
Table 5. Most Local Cited References.
Row Ref Description Total Citations
1 [1] EEGLAB 12,700
2 [2] FieldTrip 1,507
3 [54] Nonparametric statistical tests 1,267
4 [3] ERPLAB 1,215
5 [55] ERP – P300 (P3a , P3b) 1,046
6 [56] Handedness analysis 970
7 [57] blind separation and deconvolution 914
8 [58] Artifacts - blind source separation 837
9 [59] ERP/ MEG synchronization and desynchronization 831
10 [60] Psychophysics Toolbox 797
Table 6. Co-Citation Network.
Table 6. Co-Citation Network.
Row Clusters Author Name (last Name, abbreviated First Name)
1 1 delorme a, anonymous, klimesch w, pfurtscheller g, makeig s, oostenveld r, cohen mx, naatanen r, jung tp, maris e, jensen o, pascualmarqui rd, friston kj, benjamini y, buzsaki g, sauseng p, oldfield rc, bell aj, babiloni c, winkler i , tallonbaudry c, brainard dh, fries p, hanslmayr s, stam cj, onton j, engel ak, perrin f, kayser j, basar e, barry rj, knyazev gg, lehmann d
2 2 luck sj, polich j, kutas m, lopezcalderon j, cavanagh jf, eimer m, debener s, picton tw, dien j, dehaene s, hillyard sa
3 3 hajcak g, holroyd cb, nieuwenhuis s, yeung n, falkenstein m, gehring wj
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated