Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:02:14.657Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Scaling is necessary when making comparisons between shapes of event-related potential topographies: A reply to Haig et al.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 1999

DANIEL S. RUCHKIN
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA
RAY JOHNSON
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, USA
DAVID FRIEDMAN
Affiliation:
Cognitive Electrophysiology Laboratory, New York Psychiatric Institute, New York, USA
Get access

Abstract

A. R. Haig, E. Gordon, and S. Hook (1997) disputed G. McCarthy and C. C. Wood's (1985) contention that scaling should be used when assessing the statistical significance of between condition (or group) differences in the shapes of event-related potential (ERP) scalp topographies. Haig et al. based their contention upon the lack of empirical realism in McCarthy and Wood's model of within-group ERP noise, claiming that McCarthy and Wood's results could not be generalized to realistic ERP data. We argue, on both empirical and theoretical grounds, that Haig et al. do not make a compelling case against generalization of McCarthy and Wood's results. Moreover, Haig et al.'s conclusion is based upon a misconception of how scaling should be used. We conclude that when a quantitative measure of differences between topographic shapes is needed, scaling is not an option—it is a requirement.

Type
SPECIAL REPORT
Copyright
© 1999 Society for Psychophysiological Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)