Abstract
AbstractRhythms are a common feature of brain activity. Across different types of rhythms, the phase has been proposed to have functional consequences, thus requiring its accurate specification from noisy data. Phase is conventionally specified using techniques that presume a frequency band-limited rhythm. However, in practice, observed brain rhythms are typically nonsinusoidal and amplitude modulated. How these features impact methods to estimate phase remains unclear. To address this, we consider three phase estimation methods, each with different underlying assumptions about the rhythm. We apply these methods to rhythms simulated with different generative mechanisms and demonstrate inconsistency in phase estimates across the different methods. We propose two improvements to the practice of phase estimation: (1) estimating confidence in the phase estimate, and (2) examining the consistency of phase estimates between two (or more) methods.
Funder
HHS | NIH | National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
HHS | NIH | National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
Subject
General Medicine,General Neuroscience
Reference87 articles.
1. A product theorem for Hilbert transforms;Proc IEEE,1963
2. Regional Delta Waves In Human Rapid Eye Movement Sleep
3. Continuous phase estimation for phase-locked neural stimulation using an autoregressive model for signal prediction;Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc,2018
4. Estimating and interpreting the instantaneous frequency of a signal–part 1: fundamentals,1991
5. Chronux: A platform for analyzing neural signals