Guest guest Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Dear list, In neurofeedback literature I see two different explanations about what we measure at a monopolar referential placement. One is, that we measure the difference between electrical activity picked up from an aera of ca. 6 cm2 under the active electrode and that what is picked up by the reference electrode. So if the reference electrode is electrically close to neutral, like the ear or mastoid, the result is an indication of activity in the area of ca. 6 cm2 under the active electrode. Each electrode only picks up local activity. The second reading is that you measure the entire cortical territory between the two electrodes. In that case the values at the active electrode will generally be higher when the reference is placed farther away, as more 'in between' activity would be picked up. To infer what happens in areas not actually measured (that is, the zone between the electrodes, for example the area under C4, if we measure Cz-A2) seems to me incorrect. The consequence also would be that referencing at A1 or A2 doesnot make a difference, if both ears would be equally 'neutral' (which may not be the case). I even could reference to the neutral ear of my dog... Am I wrong? Jan Schene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.